UNIVERSITY   OF    CALIFORNIA 

COLLEGE   OF    AGRICULTURE 

AGRICULTURAL   EXPERIMENT   STATION 

BERKELEY,    CALIFORNIA 


ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF  THE 
PEAR   INDUSTRY 


S.  W.  SHEAR 


BULLETIN  452 

April,  1928 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  PRINTING  OFFICE 

BERKELEY,  CALIFORNIA 

1928 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2012  with  funding  from 

University  of  California,  Davis  Libraries 


http://www.archive.org/details/economicaspectso452shea 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Summary  and  conclusions 5 

General  object  of  the  study 9 

Chief  pear-producing  sections  of  the  United  States 10 

Geographical  distribution  of  chief  varieties 13 

Trend  of  production  in  chief  sections  19 

Forecast  of  production  for  chief  sections 21 

California  pear-producing  districts  29 

Prices  and  purchasing  power  of  fresh  pears 36 

Exports  of  fresh  pears 44 

Chief  domestic  markets  for  California  pears 51 

Monthly  variation  in  movement 51 

Competition  of  other  fruits  with  California  Bartletts 63 

Weekly  variation  in  shipments 67 

Weekly  sales  of  Pacific  Coast  pears  by  varieties 70 

Relation  of  weekly  supply  to  price 75 

Production  of  canning  pears 83 

Price  and  purchasing  power  of  canning  pears 89 

Exports  of  canned  pears 91 

Dried  pears 97 

Appendix  of  tables 100 


LIST  OF  TABLES 

TABLE  PAGE 

1  New  York  delivered-auction  sales  of  Oregon  pears  by  chief  varieties  and 

of  California  Bartletts,  1917-1926 15 

2  Estimated  acreage  of  California  pears  by  variety  and  by  age,  1927 18 

3  Pear  trees  in  United  States  by  chief  states  and  groups,  1910, 1920  and  1925  20 

4  Estimated  full  crops  of  pears  by  chief  states  and  sections,  1917-1927 25 

5  California  production  and  bearing  acreage  of  pears,  1909-1927,  and  fore- 

casted bearing  acreage,  1928-1930 27 

6  Price  and  purchasing  power  of  California  Bartlett  pears,  1909-1927 38 

7  Farm  price  and  purchasing  power  of  California  pears  per  ton  and  per 

bearing  acre,  1918-1927 40 

8  Estimated  equivalent  at  California  ranches  of  delivered-auction  prices 

of  unstored  Bartletts  in  New  York,  Philadelphia,  Baltimore,  Cleveland 
and  Pittsburg 43 

9  Value  and  purchasing  power  of  fresh-pear  exports  from  the  United  States, 

crop  years  1905-1926 47 

10  Exports  of  fresh  pears  from  the  United  States  by  chief  countries  of  des- 

tination, calendar  years  1922-1926 47 

11  Pear  unloads  or  arrivals  in  certain  cities  by  chief  sections  of  origin,  1925 

and  1926 49 

12  Monthly  carlot  shipments  of  fresh  pears  by  chief  states  and  groups, 

1924-1927 50 

13  California  interstate  pear  shipments,  annual  1895-1927,  monthly  1903- 

1927 54 


PAGE 

14  Monthly  carlot  shipments  of  California  pears  by  counties  and  districts, 

1926 56 

15  United  States  cold-storage  holdings  of  pears  on  first  of  each  month, 

seasons  1923-1926 60 

16  United  States  monthly  exports  of  fresh  pears,  quantity  and  value,  aver- 

age, seasons  1922-1926 62 

17  United  States  carlot  shipments  of  chief  fresh  fruits,  average  1919-1921 

and  1924-1926;  July,  August,  July-August,  and  calendar  year  totals....     65 

18  Weekly  United  States  pear  shipments  by  chief  states  and  groups,  seasons 

1925-1927 66 

19  Weekly  California  pear  shipments,  interstate  north  of  Tehachapi,  1923- 

1927,  average  1910-1914 70 

20  Weekly  New  York  delivered-auction  sales  of  California  Bartlett  pears, 

1925-1927 79 

21  United  States  canned-pear  pack  by  chief  states,  census  years  1899-1925....  82 

22  United  States  exports  of  canned  pears,  years  beginning  July  1, 1919-1926...  84 

23  United  States  canned-fruit  pack,  census  years  1899-1925,  by  chief  kinds 

of  fruit  including  Hawaiian  canned  pineapples 86 

24  Approximate  price  and  purchasing  power  of  California  canning  Bartletts, 

1905-1927 90 

25  United  States  canned-pear  exports  by  chief  countries  of  destination  and 

by  customs  districts  of  origin,  calendar  years  1922-1926 93 

26  Factory  output  of  canned  fruit  and  of  jams,  marmalades,  and  jellies, 

Australia  and  Union  of  South  Africa  in  recent  years 95 

27  Australian   canned  pack   of  peaches,   pears,   and  apricots,    1922-23   to 

1925-26 95 

28  Bearing  and  non-bearing  fruit  trees  by  kinds  on  farms  in  Australia, 

1918-19  and  1924-25 96 

29  California  dried  pear  price  and  purchasing  power,  packers'  quotations 

f.  o.  b.  California,  1909-1927 100 

30  United  States  pear  production  by  chief  states  and  groups,  1917-1927 101 

31  Commercial  output  of  California  pears  by  chief  uses,  1906-1927 102 

32  United  States  carlot  shipments  of  pears  by  chief  states  and  groups,  crop 

years  1917-1927 103 

33  Carlot  shipments  of  California  pears  by  counties  and  districts,  calendar 

years  1920-1926 104 

34  California  bearing  pear  acreage  by  counties  and  districts,  1921-1927,  and 

non-bearing  and  total,  1927 105 

35  Price  and  purchasing  power  of  chief  varieties  of  Oregon  pears  and  of 

California  Bartletts,  1917-1926 106 

36  Weekly  sales  of  Pacific  Coast  pears  at  New  York  delivered  auctions  by 

chief  varieties,  1926 107 


ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF  THE  PEAR  INDUSTRY1 

S.  W.  SHEAR? 


SUMMARY   AND   CONCLUSIONS 

During  the  last  two  decades  the  pear  industry  of  the  United  States 
has  been  characterized  by  the  rapid  extension  of  acreage,  production, 
shipments,  and  canned  output  of  pears  on  the  Pacific  Coast,  compared 
with  the  relatively  slow  growth  of  the  industry  east  of  the  Rocky 
Mountains.  The  ravages  of  pear  blight  have  been  the  chief  obstacle 
to  the  extensive  development  of  the  pear  industry  in  the  east.  In 
many  sections  of  the  Pacific  coast,  however,  the  blight  is  naturally 
much  less  serious  and,  in  addition,  improved  methods  of  prevention 
and  control  have  been  so  diligently  used  that  the  disease,  particularly 
in  California,  has  destroyed  relatively  few  trees  during  the  last 
decade. 


1  Acknowledgments. — Preparation  of  this  bulletin  has  been  greatly  facilitated 
by  the  generous  assistance  of  many  individuals  and  organizations,  to  whom  the 
author  wishes  to  express  his  thanks.  Among  the  agencies  that  have  given  liberally 
of  their  time  and  data  are  the  Divisions  of  Crop  Estimates,  Fruits  and  Vegetables, 
and  Statistical  and  Historical  Research,  of  the  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics 
of  the  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture;  the  Bureau  of  the  Census  and 
the  Bureau  of  Foreign  and  Domestic  Commerce,  of  the  United  States  Department 
of  Commerce;  the  California  Cooperative  Crop  Reporting  Service;  the  Southern 
Pacific,  and  the  Atchison,  Topeka  and  Santa  Fe  railroads;  the  Pacific  Fruit  Ex- 
press, the  Santa  Fe  Refrigerator  Dispatch,  and  the  American  Railway  Express 
companies;  the  California  Fruit  Exchange,  the  California  Fruit  Distributors,  the 
Stewart  Fruit  Company,  the  California  Growers'  and  Shippers'  Protective  League, 
the  Canners'  League  of  California,  the  Pacific  Northwest  Canners'  Association, 
the  Association  of  New  York  State  Canners,  the  Dried  Fruit  Association  of  Cali- 
fornia, the  Pacific  Coast  Association  of  Nurserymen,  Libby,  McNeil  and  Libby, 
the  California  Packing  Corporation,  and  the  Agricultural  Department  of  the  Los 
Angeles  Chamber  of  Commerce;  Professors  W.  S.  Brown  and  F.  C.  Reimer  and 
Mr.  R.  S.  Besse  of  the  Oregon  Agricultural  College;  Mr.  M.  D.  Armstrong  of  the 
State  College  of  Washington;  Mr.  Howard  C.  Rowley,  editor  of  the  California 
Fruit  News;  and  Mr.  A.  B.  Humphrey,  Mrs.  H.  W.  Bartell,  Mr.  Eugene  G.  Cutter, 
Mr.  O.  K.  Conant,  President  of  Yakima  Horticultural  Union,  Mr.  Wendell  P. 
Brown,  District  Horticultural  Inspector  at  Yakima,  Washington,  Mr.  Robert  E. 
Shinn  of  the  Growers  Exchange,  Medford,  Oregon,  and  Mr.  Frank  T.  Swett, 
President  and  Manager  of  the  California  Pear  Growers'  Association. 

From  among  the  members  of  the  University  staff,  valuable  suggestions  have 
been  received  from  Dr.  W.  P.  Tufts,  Professor  C.  M.  Titus,  Dr.  H.  R.  Wellman, 
Mr.  L.  W.  Fluharty,  Mr.  L.  C.  Barnard,  and  Mr.  C.  S.  Myszka.  Within  the  Divi- 
sion of  Agricultural  Economics  valuable  assistance  was  received  from  Dr.  H.  E. 
Erdman  and  Dr.  Emil  Rauchenstein.  The  statistical  computations  were  mostly 
made  by  Miss  Gladys  E.  Platts. 

2  Junior  Agricultural  Economist  in  the  Experiment  Station. 


b  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

Favored  by  nature  and  encouraged  by  high  prices  during  and 
right  after  the  war,  average  production  and  shipments  of  Pacific 
Coast  pears  increased  over  60  per  cent  from  1920  to  1925.  If  the 
average  rate  of  increase  in  production  in  this  section  of  about  10  per 
cent  a  year,  which  has  taken  place  since  1920,  is  maintained  until  1930, 
as  seems  probable,  the  average  crop  for  the  three  years  1924-1926  of 
11  million  bushels  (about  275,000  tons),  will  have  expanded  to  an 
annual  average  of  perhaps  18  million  bushels  (about  450,000  tons).  If 
nothing  unexpected  happens  to  the  pear  industry,  average  national 
production  may  be  in  the  neighborhood  of  28  million  bushels  (about 
700,000  tons)  by  1930,  or  about  one-third  greater  than  the  average 
crop  of  about  21  million  bushels  (approximately  500,000  tons)  for 
1924-1926. 

The  seriousness  of  the  continued  increase  in  far-western  produc- 
tion lies  in  the  probability  that  the  prices  which  the  pear  growers  of 
this  section  receive  in  the  near  future  will  average  appreciably  lower 
than  in  recent  years,  unless  costs  of  marketing  are  noticeably  cut  and 
foreign  and  domestic  demand  greatly  stimulated  by  advertising  and 
extended  through  improved  distribution.  Furthermore,  the  possi- 
bility that  pear  prices  in  the  future  may  remain  at  a  lower  level 
than  in  recent  years,  is  suggested  by  the  fact  that  there  is  a  large  and 
increasing  acreage  of  California  pear  orchards  in  sections  in  which 
the  majority  of  growers  can  produce  pears  profitably  at  a  price  con- 
siderably below  the  average  they  have  received  in  the  last  few  years. 
It  should  also  be  remembered  that  national  production  of  many  fruits, 
several  of  which  compete  with  pears,  has  increased  rapidly  in  the  last 
decade,  making  it  more  difficult  to  market  most  fruits  at  satisfactory 
prices  in  years  when  weather  conditions  have  been  favorable  for  good 
yields. 

California  Bartlett  pear  shipments  to  eastern  markets  meet  little 
competition  from  pears  from  other  sections  of  the  country  until  the 
last  of  July,  when  shipments  of  pears  from  this  state  have  normally 
reached  a  peak  or  have  started  to  decline  slightly.  The  dominant 
influence  of  California  supplies  upon  Bartlett  prices  is  shown  by 
the  fact  that  over  92  per  cent  of  the  changes  in  the  weekly  delivered- 
auction  prices  of  California  Bartletts  in  New  York  City  in  1925  and 
1926  are  accounted  for  by  changes  in  the  weekly  volume  of  auction 
sales.  About  90  per  cent  of  the  changes  in  price  are  accounted 
for  by  variations  in  shipments  of  pears  from  California  two  weeks 
previously. 

During  August  and  the  first  part  of  September,  California  Bartlett 
pear  shipments  usually  decline  until  they  become  unimportant,  while 


BUL.  452]  ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF  THE  PEAR  INDUSTRY  7 

pear  shipments  from  the  Pacific  Northwest,  normally  California 's  only 
important  competitor  in  eastern  markets,  increase  steadily  in  volume. 
Late  varieties  of  California  pears,  which  seldom  begin  to  move  to 
eastern  markets  in  large  quantities  until  after  the  middle  of  Septem- 
ber, compete  much  more  keenly  with  Oregon  and  Washington  pears 
than  do  Bartletts,  since  practically  all  the  fall  and  winter  varieties, 
none  of  which  are  canning  pears,  are  sold  for  consumption  as  fresh 
fruit.  What  competition  California  may  experience  from  eastern 
pears  affects  the  price  of  late  varieties  rather  than  of  Bartletts,  except, 
perhaps,  in  seasons  when  pears  from  this  state  are  unusually  late  or 
when  eastern  pears  ripen  unusually  early. 

The  decisive  tendency  for  the  price  of  California  fresh  pears  to 
rise  in  eastern  markets  as  current  market  supplies  decrease,  or  to  fall 
as  supplies  increase,  suggests  the  desirability  of  supplying  consumers 
with  more  fresh  pears  in  periods  of  the  year  now  apparently  under- 
supplied.  It  also  emphasizes  the  need  of  more  equitable  distribution 
between  markets  at  all  times.  During  the  peak  weeks  of  the  shipping 
season  careful  study  of  available  facts  is  necessary  to  enable  growers 
to  decide  whether  to  sell  to  the  canneries  or  to  other  local  buyers,  or 
to  ship  on  their  own  account  and  either  sell  immediately  upon  arrival 
in  eastern  markets  or  to  hold  in  storage  temporarily  until  prices  are 
more  favorable. 

The  increasing  proportion  of  fall  and  winter  varieties  of  pears 
which  has  been  planted  on  the  Pacific  Coast  in  recent  years,  because 
of  their  high  price,  indicates  one  important  way  in  which  the  mar- 
keting season  for  fresh  pears  has  been  extended  and  probably  can 
be  further  extended,  to  a  limited  degree,  in  the  future.  Any  expan- 
sion in  plantings  of  late  varieties  of  pears  should,  however,  not  be 
large.  Those  making  such  plantings  should  remember  that  some  of 
the  best  of  these  varieties  are  slow  in  coming  into  bearing,  and  pro- 
duce rather  low  and  variable  yields.  Moreover,  the  taste  of  many 
consumers  for  any  pear  other  than  the  Bartlett  must  be  cultivated. 
Although  the  better  late  varieties,  such  as  Bosc  and  Anjou,  have  com- 
manded a  high  premium  over  Bartlett  prices  in  Eastern  markets 
during  the  last  ten  years,  a  considerable  part  of  it  is  absorbed  by  cold- 
storage  charges.  Furthermore,  the  premium  has  already  begun  to 
decrease  and  will  probably  continue  to  do  so  for  some  time,  because 
of  increasing  production. 

The  canned-pear  industry  of  the  country  centers  on  the  Pacific 
Coast,  which  section  contributed  about  90  per  cent  of  the  3.8  million 
cases  of  pears  canned  in  the  United  States  in  1925,  utilizing  nearly 
one-fourth  of  its  total  pear  crop  in  this  manner.     The  canned-pear 


Q  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

output  of  Oregon  and  Washington  has  increased  with  amazing  rapid- 
ity in  the  last  two  decades,  the  pack  of  the  last  two  years  being  about 
thirty-five  times  the  pre-war  canned  output.  Less  than  5  per  cent  of 
the  national  output  of  canned  pears  was  packed  in  the  Pacific  North- 
west before  the  war  and  about  30  per  cent  in  the  last  few  years.  The 
average  California  pack  of  over  2  million  cases  in  recent  years,  which 
has  constituted  almost  60  per  cent  of  the  national  output,  has  been 
almost  three  times  the  pre-war  pack  and  has  utilized  about  one-fourth 
of  the  total  production  of  pears  in  the  state.  The  quantity  of  pears 
canned  in  the  United  States  as  a  whole  has  practically  trebled  in  the 
last  15  years,  while  the  population  of  the  country  has  increased  only 
about  23  per  cent,  and  exports  have  little  more  than  kept  pace  with 
the  increasing  pack. 

With  the  outlook  for  a  considerable  increase  in  Bartlett  pear 
production  in  both  California  and  the  Pacific  Northwest  in  the  next 
few  years,  it  seems  that  the  canned-pear  output  of  the  Pacific  Coast 
will  probably  expand  appreciably  within  a  few  years.  Any  consider- 
able expansion,  however,  will  probably  cause  a  noticeable  decline  in 
canning-pear  prices  unless  the  demand  for  canned  pears  is  substan- 
tially increased.  Whether  any  considerable  increase  in  the  demand 
for  canned  pears  can  be  profitably  brought  about  is  open  to  serious 
question,  however,  because  of  the  continually  expanding  world  output 
of  other  canned  fruits  and  also  of  dried  and  of  fresh  fruits  which 
compete  with  pears  in  both  our  foreign  and  our  domestic  markets. 
Our  output  of  canned  peaches,  apricots,  and  Hawaiian  pineapples  is 
now  about  three  and  a  half  times  its  pre-war  volume.  Likewise  the 
national  output  of  dried  fruits,  which  probably  compete  with  canned 
pears,  to  a  limited  extent  at  least,  has  doubled  within  fifteen  years. 

The  vital  dependence  of  our  canned-pear  industry  upon  foreign 
markets  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  nearly  one-half  of  the  United  States 
pack  has  been  exported  in  recent  years.  The  import  statistics  of  the 
United  Kingdom,  which  country  has  taken  about  90  per  cent  of  our 
canned-pear  exports  (equivalent  to  over  40  per  cent  of  our  national 
pack)  in  recent  years,  indicate  that  our  exports,  not  only  of  canned 
pears,  but  also  of  canned  peaches  and  apricots,  have,  in  the  last  twenty 
years,  probably  increased  at  about  the  same  rate  as  our  canned  output. 
Recently  our  exports  of  canned  pears  to  the  United  Kingdom  have 
been  practically  as  great  as  those  of  peaches  and  over  twice  those  of 
apricots. 

It  is  probably  feasible  to  expand  markets  for  fresh  pears  somewhat 
in  the  next  few  years  by  wider  and  more  efficient  distribution,  but 
the  limited  facts  available  regarding  such  possibilities  seem  to  indicate 


BUL.  452]  ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF  THE  PEAR  INDUSTRY  9 

that  it  is  unlikely  that  improvements  in  marketing  will  counteract 
more  than  a  small  part  of  the  lowering  of  prices  promised  by  the  great 
prospective  increase  in  production.  Only  a  very  small  increase  in 
the  proportion  of  the  price  paid  by  the  consumer  which  is  returned 
to  the  grower  can  be  expected  in  the  next  few  years  as  a  result  of 
possible  decreases  in  the  cost  of  marketing.  Every  reasonable  effort, 
however,  should  be  made  to  improve  growers'  returns  by  this  method. 

Expansion  of  foreign  markets  for  fresh  pears  seems  to  hold  some 
promise  if  intelligently  effected.  There  has  been  a  tendency  in  recent 
years  for  our  fresh-pear  exports,  the  majority  of  which  are  consumed 
by  the  United  Kingdom,  to  increase  at  about  the  same  rate  as  produc- 
tion and  shipments.  According  to  a  well-informed  student  of  the 
British  fresh-fruit  market  it  seems  probable  that  we  can  gradually 
expand  our  exports  of  fresh  pears  to  England  in  the  face  of  European 
supplies.3  The  European  winter  market  for  our  fancy  late  varieties 
of  pears  promises  possibilities  of  gradual  expansion.  The  acreage  and 
production  of  pears  in  Canada  has  been  decreasing  in  the  last  decade 
and,  as  a  result,  Canadian  imports  of  fresh  pears,  which  practically 
all  come  from  the  United  States,  have  been  increasing  appreciably. 

Since  average  prices  will  probably  be  lower  in  the  next  few  years, 
it  behooves  all  growers  who  can  possibly  do  so  to  reduce  their  costs 
of  production.  Growers  in  localities  not  well  adapted  to  producing 
high  yields  of  pears  per  acre  or  quality  of  sufficient  superiority  to 
offset  low  yields  should  carefully  consider  possible  supplementary 
enterprises  whereby  they  may  increase  their  income  by  drawing  a 
larger  proportion  of  it  from  sources  likely  to  be  more  remunerative 
than  pears.  Apparently  growers  who  are  largely  dependent  upon 
pears  for  their  income  and  who  cannot  make  a  living  from  pear  pro- 
duction at  lower  prices  will  be  forced  to  discontinue  farming  for 
themselves,  unless  they  can  quickly  substitute  crops  capable  of  bring- 
ing them  a  living,  or  else  supplement  their  farm  income  by  wages 
earned  elsewhere. 

GENERAL   OBJECT   OF    THE    STUDY 

The  economic  status  of  the  pear  industry  directly  or  indirectly 
influences  the  prosperity  of  many  persons,  organizations,  and  com- 
munities in  California.  Growers,  marketing  organizations,  bankers, 
transportation  companies,  and  other  agencies  serving  the  pear  industry 
are  all  keenly  interested  in  knowing  what  the  pear  crop  of  the  state 


3  Edwin  Smith,  Fruit  Marketing  Specialist  of  the  U.  S.  Department  of  Agri- 
culture, stationed  in  Europe;  see  U.  S.  Bureau  Agricultural  Economics,  Foreign 
News  on  Apples  (mimeo.),  52:6.     1926.     See  discussion  on  page  45. 


10  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

promises  in  a  financial  way.  The  present  study  has  as  its  general 
objective  the  assembling,  evaluation,  and  analysis  of  the  chief  avail- 
able statistical  data  relating  to  the  industry,  as  a  basis  for  a  partial 
and  tentative  answer  to  the  question,  ' '  What  is  the  economic  situation 
of,  and  the  outlook  for,  the  pear  industry  in  California?"  The  con- 
clusions drawn  are  largely  based  upon  available  statistics  on  acreage, 
production,  shipments,  canned  and  dried  output,  unloads,  cold-storage 
holdings,  exports,  and  prices.  The  necessity  of  a  study  of  certain 
other  facts  in  shaping  a  comprehensive  program  of  readjustment  has 
been  called  to  the  reader's  attention.  Conclusions  drawn  from  the 
limited  data  available  can,  in  a  number  of  instances,  be  considered 
only  as  partial  and  tentative  answers  to  questions  the  solution  of 
which  are  of  the  utmost  importance  to  the  future  of  the  industry. 

The  scope  and  content  of  the  study  have  of  necessity  been  limited 
by  the  fact  that  it  is  largely  based  on  the  more  readily  available  pub- 
lished and  unpublished  statistical  information.  On  this  account,  a 
discussion  of  certain  major  problems  of  the  industry  are  omitted 
entirely.  Lack  of  sufficient  available  data  as  a  basis  for  drawing 
worth-while  conclusions  regarding  problems  of  market  distribution 
has  made  it  necessary  to  omit  a  study  of  this  important  economic 
phase  of  the  industry  from  the  present  publication.  There  is  urgent 
need  for  intensive  studies  of  several  important  pear-marketing  prob- 
lems, as  well  as  a  study  of  the  factors  influencing  the  demand  for 
pears.  At  the  present  time,  however,  the  means  are  not  available  for 
making  such  extensive  first-hand  studies. 

The  aim  of  this  publication  has  been  to  present  the  available  statis- 
tics in  such  a  manner  as  to  lead  those  interested  in  pear  production 
to  a  better  understanding  of  the  existing  economic  situation  of  the 
industry  and  the  present  and  future  problems.  Hence,  it  is  believed, 
that  this  study  should  result  in  a  more  rapid  and  effective  solution  of 
the  problems  now  confronting  the  industry  or  likely  to  confront  it  in 
the  near  future. 

CHIEF   PEAR-PRODUCING    SECTIONS   OF   THE    UNITED    STATES 

Commercial  Production  Largely  Concentrated  in  Two  Sections. — 
Figure  1  and  table  30  (p.  101)  show  that  production  in  the  United 
States  is  largely  concentrated  in  two  general  sections:  (1)  west  of 
the  Rockies,  in  the  three  Pacific  Coast  states,  and  (2)  east  of  the 
Mississippi  River  in  the  group  of  states  bordering  on  the  Great  Lakes 
— Illinois,  Indiana,  Michigan,  Ohio,  Pennsylvania,  and  New  York — 
and,  touching  these  on  the  east  and  fronting  on  the  Atlantic,  the  states 


Bul.452] 


ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF  THE  PEAR  INDUSTRY 


11 


of  New  Jersey,  Delaware,  Maryland,  and  Virginia.  In  1925  over 
four-fifths  of  the  total  pear  acreage  of  the  country  was  to  be  found 
in  these  two  sections.  In  recent  years  they  produced  approximately 
the  same  proportion  of  the  national  pear  crop  and  were  the  source  of 
well  over  95  per  cent  of  carlot  shipments  and  of  practically  all  the 
commercial  pack  of  canned  and  of  dried  pears.  Outside  of  these  two 
general  areas,  Texas  and  Missouri  are  the  only  states  which  individ- 
ually have  been  of  even  minor  importance  in  the  pear  industry  of  the 
country  in  recent  years. 


D/'sfri but/on    of  Pear  Trees  /n  the  United  States,  /9Z5 

Total    o~f  Bearing   and   Non-  bearing    by   States 


Fig.  1. — Commercial  pear  production  in  the  United  States  is  largely  concen- 
trated in  two  general  sections:  (1)  west  of  the  Kocky  Mountains  in  the  Pacific 
Coast  states  and  (2)  east  of  the  Mississippi  River  in  the  states  bordering  on  the 
Great  Lakes  and  in  those  on  the  central  Atlantic  Coast  touching  these  on  the 
east. 

(Data  from  same  source  as  those  in  table  3.) 


Local  concentration  of  commercial  pear  production  within  these 
two  sections  is  found  in  a  few  relatively  small  areas.  The  most 
important  of  these  areas  are  in  the  Hudson  River  Valley  and  in  the 
lake-shore  counties  of  New  York,  in  southwestern  Michigan,  in  central 
California,  in  the  Rogue  River  Valley  of  Oregon,  and  in  the  Yakima 
Valley  of  Washington.  The  rather  scattered  distribution  of  the 
industry  elsewhere  in  the  country  may  be  seen  by  reference  to  figure  1. 


12  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

Relative  Importance  of  Different  Section. — The  concentration  of 
the  industry  in  a  few  states  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  in  recent  years 
the  four  states  of  California,  Washington,  Oregon,  and  New  York 
(the  one  outstanding  eastern  producer)  have  accounted  for  nearly 
60  per  cent  of  the  pear  acreage  in  the  United  States,  about  63  per  cent 
of  the  production,  over  86  per  cent  of  carlot  shipments,  over  90  per 
cent  of  the  total  canned-pear  pack,  and  all  of  the  commercial  output 
of  dried  pears. 

The  pear  output  of  the  Pacific  Northwest  has  been  very  large  in 
recent  years  and  has  been  increasing  rapidly.  In  1925  slightly  over 
12  per  cent  of  the  pear  trees  in  the  United  States  were  in  the  two 
States  of  Oregon  and  Washington.  During  the  years  1924-1926  they 
produced  an  average  of  about  4  million  bushels  of  pears  or  over  18 
per  cent  of  the  national  crop,  while  their  shipments  of  nearly  5,900 
cars  a  year  accounted  for  over  28  per  cent  of  the  carlot  movement 
of  fresh  pears.  During  the  same  period  the  two  states  contributed 
approximately  35  per  cent  of  the  national  pack  of  canned  pears. 

The  importance  of  California  in  the  pear  industry  may  be  judged 
by  the  fact  that  this  one  state  contained  nearly  one-third  of  the  23 
million  pear  trees  in  the  United  States  in  1925.  During  the  three 
years  1924-1926,  the  state  produced  over  one-third  of  the  total  pear 
crop — averaging  7.3  million  bushels  (about  176,000  tons),  compared 
with  a  national  total  of  21.7  million  bushels  (over  520,000  tons).  In 
spite  of  the  fact  that  over  60  per  cent  of  the  canned-pear  pack  of  the 
country  was  supplied  by  California  during  this  period,  the  interstate 
shipments  of  pears  from  this  state  for  consumption  in  a  fresh  form 
averaged  slightly  over  7,800  carloads,  or  approximately  40  per  cent 
of  the  national  movement.4  In  addition,  the  state  packed  practically 
all  of  the  commercial  output  of  dried  pears  in  the  United  States. 


4  Figure  24,  page  83,  exhibits  the  canned-pear  pack  by  chief  states  in  1925; 
table  32,  page  103,  United  States  pear  shipments  by  chief  states  and  sections; 
and  table  13,  page  54,  interstate  shipments  of  pears  for  fresh  consumption  from 
California  in  recent  years.  California  is  the  only  state  for  which  data  are  avail- 
able showing  pear  shipments  designed  for  fresh  consumption  separate  from  those 
which  go  to  commercial  canneries.  All  carlot  shipments  of  fresh  pears  are  in- 
cluded in  table  32  regardless  of  their  use.  No  exact  estimate,  therefore,  can  be 
made  of  the  proportion  which  California  shipments  of  pears  for  consumption  in 
a  fresh  form  constitute  of  the  natonal  total  shipped  for  such  use.  It  should  also 
be  remembered  that  there  is  probably  a  heavy  commercial  movement  of  fresh 
pears  by  motor  truck  into  many  large  consuming  centers  located  near  eastern  pear- 
producing  sections.  Judging  by  the  small  proportion  that  total  carlot  shipments 
bear  to  the  estimated  production  of  such  states  as  Pennsylvania,  New  Jersey,  and 
Michigan,  this  movement  by  truck  is,  without  doubt,  substantial.  See  Oley,  R.  C. 
Transportation  of  New  Jersey's  fruits  and  vegetables  by  truck.  New  Jersey  Dept. 
Agr.,  Bur.  Stat,  and  Inspection,  Cir.  99:  1-24.     1926. 


BUL.  452]  ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF  THE  PEAR  INDUSTRY  13 


GEOGRAPHICAL    DISTRIBUTION    OF    CHIEF    VARIETIESs 

In  a  survey  of  the  chief  varieties  of  pears  produced  in  the  United 
States,  Brown  found  the  Bartlett  in  1925  the  dominant  variety  in 
most  commercial  producing  sections.  In  non-commercial  producing 
sections,  particularly  in  the  south,  he  found  that  the  hardy  sand-pear 
hybrids  comprised  the  majority  of  trees,  the  Kieffer  predominating, 
with  the  Garber  and  LeConte  varieties  ranking  next  in  importance. 
In  several  commercial  producing  sections  in  the  east,  however,  he 
found  that  the  Kieffer  held  first  place  because  it  is  more  resistant  to 
blight  than  varieties  like  the  Bartlett  and  others  with  eating  qualities 
much  superior  to  the  Kieffer. 

Bartlett  and  Kieffer  are  Chief  Eastern  Varieties. — It  is  estimated 
that  in  Pennsylvania,  the  Bartlett  and  Kieffer  are  fairly  evenly 
divided.  The  Bartlett  is  the  leading  variety  in  New  York,  followed 
by  Kieffer,  Seckel,  Clapp's  Favorite,  Bosc,  Anjou,  Clairgeau  and 
Duchess,  approximately  in  the  order  named.  Between  50  and  60  per 
cent  of  the  crop  of  western  New  York  is  estimated  to  be  Bartletts, 
but  in  the  Hudson  River  section  this  variety  constitutes  only  about 
one-third  of  the  acreage.  Texas  is  the  only  southern  state  that  grows 
Bartletts  commercially.  In  the  irrigated  region  around  Clint  and 
Ysleta,  near  El  Paso,  nearly  60  per  cent  of  the  pear  crop  is  Bartletts. 
In  the  other  pear-growing  sections  of  the  state  the  Kieffer  is  the  lead- 
ing variety. 

A  large  majority  of  the  pears  produced  in  New  Jersey,  Delaware, 
Maryland,  and  Virginia  and  a  smaller  majority  in  Illinois,  Indiana, 
and  Michigan  are  Kieffers.  Kieffers  constitute  about  60  per  cent  of 
the  pear  crop  of  New  Jersey,  and  Bartletts  nearly  20  per  cent,  the 
remainder  being  composed  principally  of  LeConte,  Duchess,  and 
Seckel.  In  Delaware  about  90  per  cent  of  the  output  is  Kieffers. 
Bartlett,  LeConte,  Seckel,  and  Duchess  make  up  the  greater  part  of 
the  balance.  About  85  per  cent  of  the  pear  acreage  of  Illinois  is 
planted  to  Kieffers  and  a  large  majority  of  the  pear  shipments  are 
of  this  variety.     In  Michigan  the  Kieffer  constitutes  nearly  60  per 

s  This  discussion  of  the  geographical  distribution  of  the  chief  varieties  of  pears 
grown  in  the  United  States  is  largely  based  on  statements  from  the  following 
sources:  Brown,  W.  S.  The  economic  status  of  the  pear  industry.  Oregon  State 
Hort.  Society,  17th  Annual  Report  (for  1925),  pp.  77-78.  1926;  Gould,  H.  P., 
and  Frank  Andrews.  Pears:  Production  estimates  and  important  commercial 
districts  and  varieties.  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  Bui.  822:  5-16.  1922;  Fraser,  Samuel. 
American  fruits,  p.  371-372.  Orange  Judd  Pub.  Co.,  New  York,  1925;  and  the 
mimeographed  pear  deals  issued  by  the  U.  S.  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics 
annually  since  1922  or  1923  for  each  of  the  states  of  California,  New  York, 
Michigan,  and  Colorado. 


14  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

cent  of  the  pear  acreage  and  Bartletts  about  20  per  cent.  The  balance 
is  largely  composed  of  Seckel,  Clapp,  Clairgeau,  Bosc,  Anjou,  Sheldon, 
and  Duchess,  listed  approximately  in  the  order  of  their  importance. 

Trend  in  Varieties  Planted  in  the  East. — Throughout  New  Jersey, 
Delaware,  Maryland,  and  the  southern  and  middle-western  states, 
Brown  reports  that  the  Kieffer  will  probably  continue  to  dominate 
new  plantings  until  varieties  or  stocks  can  be  developed  having  better 
quality  or  more  resistance  to  blight.  In  New  York,  New  England,  and 
Michigan,  however,  the  Kieffer  is  reported  to  be  gradually  losing  its 
popularity  and  is  apparently  being  supplanted  to  some  extent  by 
pears  of  better  eating  quality.  In  New  England  the  Bosc  is  said  to 
be  the  leader  in  popularity  for  new  plantings  and  appears  to  be  gain- 
ing somewhat  in  New  York,  along  with  Clapp 's  Favorite,  Sheldon, 
and  Winter  Nelis.  The  Bartlett,  however,  is  reported  as  the  probable 
leader  in  future  plantings,  in  both  the  western  and  the  eastern  part 
of  the  state.  It  seems  likely  that  the  Seckel  will  maintain  considerable 
of  its  present  importance. 

Bartletts  Lead  West  of  Rockies. — West  of  the  Rocky  Mountains  the 
Bartlett  leads  in  commercial  output  in  every  state  except  Colorado, 
which  is  the  only  far  western  state  in  which  the  Kieffer  is  of  commer- 
cial importance.  It  is  estimated  that  about  half  of  the  pear  tonnage 
of  this  state  is  of  this. variety  and  35  to  40  per  cent  Bartletts.  The 
remainder  is  made  up  chiefly  of  Clapps  Favorite,  Anjou,  and  Flemish 
Beauty.  It  is  estimated  that  between  40  and  50  per  cent  of  the  pro- 
duction of  Oregon  is  composed  of  Bartletts,  with  the  balance  divided 
among  Bosc,  Anjou,  Cornice,  Winter  Nelis,  and  a  few  others.  Accord- 
ing to  the  results  of  a  survey,  completed  in  1926,6  of  the  number  of 
pear  trees  of  bearing  and  non-bearing  age  by  varieties  in  the  Yakima 
Valley  district,  the  chief  pear-producing  section  of  Washington, 
approximately  70  per  cent  of  the  total  acreage  is  in  Bartletts,  about 
18  per  cent  in  Winter  Nelis,  5  per  cent  in  Anjou,  3  per  cent  in  Bosc, 
and  the  remainder  largely  in  Flemish  Beauty  and  Cornice. 

Trend  of  Varieties  on  Pacific  Coast. — The  percentage  of  non- 
bearing  to  the  total  number  of  trees  by  varieties  in  Washington 
indicates  that  the  Bosc,  Flemish  Beauty,  and  Bartlett  varieties  should 
constitute  a  slightly  increased  proportion  of  the  output  of  the  Yakima 
Valley  district  in  the  next  few  years.  Consequently  the  proportion 
of  Anjou,  Cornice,  and  Winter  Nelis  will  decrease  although  their 
production  will  probably  increase  somewhat. 

c  The  results  of  this  survey  for  the  northeast,  the  southeast,  and  the  Yakima 
Valley  districts  are  given  in  table  5  in  Morris,  O.  M.,  and  M.  D.  Armstrong. 
Washington  agriculture,  part  8,  horticulture  [pears,  peaches,  prunes,  cherries,  and 
apricots].    Washington  State  Col.  Ext.  Bui.  134:  14.     1926. 


Bul.  452] 


ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF  THE  PEAR  INDUSTRY 


15 


It  seems  probable  that  the  proportion  of  late  varieties  of  pears 
grown  in  Oregon  is  on  the  increase  chiefly  as  the  result  of  the  high 
prices  which  have  been  received  for  the  best  of  these  varieties  in  the 
last  decade  compared  with  Bartletts7  and  partly  as  a  result  of  recom- 
mendations made  by  the  agricultural  economic  conferences  which  have 
been  held  in  the  state  in  the  last  three  years.  The  general  opinion 
emanating  from  these  conferences  has  been  that  in  view  of  the  big 
plantings  of  Bartletts  in  Washington  and  California,  it  seems  rather 
inadvisable  at  present  to  plant  Bartletts  extensively  in  Oregon.  In 
sections  of  the  state  especially  adapted  to  pear  culture,  moderate,  but 
not  large,  increases  in  winter  pears  may  be  desirable.8 


TABLE  1 

New  York  Delivered-Auction  Sales  of  Oregon  Pears  by  Chief  Varieties 

and  of  California  Bartletts,  1917-1926 

Number  of  boxes,  seasons  through  December  31. 


California 
Bartlett 

Oregon 

Year 

Bartletts 

Total  of 
four  late 
varieties 

Bosc 

Anjou 

Winter 

Nelis 

Cornice 

1917 

687,426 

54,239 

61,702 

16,760 

18,642 

18,225 

8,075 

1918 

663,157 

35,538 

78,814 

21,290 

22,935 

18,671 

15,918 

1919 

623,861 

38,360 

112,338 

23,387 

49,916 

19,570 

19,465 

1920 

672,710 

41,438 

103,125 

37,870 

31,800 

18,400 

15,055 

1921 

661,857 

63,022 

119,385 

44,935 

36,860 

27,378 

10,212 

1922 

940,112 

40,585 

259,075 

108,015 

59,095 

58,885 

33,080 

1923 

959,967 

106,471 

270,374 

90,535 

100,720 

52,584 

26,535 

1924 

836,927 

42,860 

168,397 

94,525 

39,766 

10,934 

23,172 

1925 

1,080,000 

92,845 

198,000 

68,000 

87,000 

23,000 

20,000 

1926 

1,403,000 

78,180 

334,000 

165,000 

113,000 

6,000 

50,000 

1927 

1,203,000 

1928* 

*  A  space  is  left  for  1928  figures  in  this  and  certain  subsequent  tables,  for  the  use  of  those  who  wish  to 
insert  them  when  they  become  available. 

Sources  of  data:  Years  1917-1924  compiled  by  the  Stewart  Fruit  Co.  from  the  New  York  Daily  Fruit 
Reporter.    Years  1925-1926  compiled  from  same  source  by  author,  to  nearest  thousand  boxes. 

In  recent  years,  at  least,  a  considerable  quantity  of  both  Anjou  and  Winter  Nelis  have  been  sold 
during  the  months  of  January  through  May.  A  comparable  series  of  figures  for  these  late  sales  are,  how- 
ever, not  available.  From  January  to  May  inclusive,  1926,  approximately  46,000  boxes  of  Winter  Nelis 
and  41,000  boxes  of  Anjou  were  sold  at  delivered  auctions  in  New  York  City. 


7  See  discussion  on  page  24. 

8  Oregon  Agricultural  Economic  Conference,  Report  of  Jan.  23-25,  1924.  Ore- 
gon Agr.  Col.  Ext.  Bul.  393:  30.  April,  1924.  See  also:  Jackson  County  Agri- 
cultural Conference.  Eeport  suggesting  an  agricultural  program  for  Jackson 
County.  Oregon  Agr.  Col.  Ext.  Ser.  Bul.  (unnumbered  and  unpaged).  Printed 
and  distributed  by  the  county  agriculture  agent,  Medford,  Oregon,  1924.  A 
similar  report,  part  of  which  deals  with  pears,  was  prepared  in  Hood  River  County, 
Oregon. 


16  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

Brown,  however,  states  that  undoubtedly  the  Bartlett  will  continue 
to  be  a  favorite  for  planting  as  long  as  cannery  prices  remain  as  good 
as  they  have  recently  been.  He  also  says  that  Clairgeau,  Cornice,  and 
Anjou  do  not  seem  to  be  as  popular  as  formerly,  but  Bosc  and  Winter 
Nelis  are  on  the  increase.  A  study  of  table  1,  showing  the  changes 
in  the  volume  of  New  York  delivered-auction  sales  of  the  four  chief 
varieties  of  late  pears  grown  in  Oregon  seems  to  indicate  that  the 
output  of  the  Anjou  and  the  Bosc  has  been  increasing  steadily  and 
rapidly  since  1917,  whereas  that  of  the  Cornice  has  increased  very 
slowly.  Winter  Nelis  seems  to  show  a  decline,  although  it  is  probable 
that  the  sales  as  reported  to  December  31  only  of  each  year  are  not 
a  fair  index  of  the  trend  of  output  of  this  variety  and  of  the  Anjou 
in  Oregon,  since  a  considerable  percentage  of  these  two  varieties  move 
into  consumption  after  the  first  of  January. 

Sales  of  Pacific  Coast  Late  Varieties  at  New  York. — Available  data 
on  delivered-auction  sales  of  late  varieties  of  Pacific  Coast  pears  in 
New  York  City  in  recent  years  give  a  clue  to  the  relative  importance 
of  these  varieties  in  this  section.  They  indicate  that  the  following, 
named  approximately  in  the  order  of  their  importance,  are  the  chief 
varieties  produced  on  the  coast:  Winter  Nelis,  Anjou,  Bosc,  Cornice, 
Beurre  Hardy,  Clairgeau,  Easter  Beurre,  and  Flemish.  (See  fig.  2 
and  table  1,  and  table  36,  p.  107.)  The  first  three  of  these  varieties,  as 
a  group,  apparently  constitute  over  half  of  the  delivered-auction  sales 
of  late  varieties  of  Pacific  Coast  pears  in  New  York. 

Practically  all  Bosc,  Cornice,  Clairgeau,  Beurre  Hardy,  and  Flem- 
ish are  sold  before  Christmas  and  a  substantial  majority  of  Anjou.9 
Probably  a  half  or  more  of  the  Winter  Nelis  are  sold  during  the 
period  from  Christmas  to  late  in  May.  The  pear  from  the  Coast 
which  is  held  the  longest  appears  to  be  the  Easter  Beurre,  over  30,000 
boxes  of  which  were  sold  in  New  York  City  in  the  spring  of  1926. 

About  one-third  of  the  New  York  auction  sales  of  late  varieties  of 
Pacific  Coast  pears  originate  in  California.  Winter  Nelis,  Beurre 
Hardy,  Cornice,  Clairgeau,  Easter  Beurre,  and  Glout  Morceau,  named 
approximately  in  the  order  of  their  importance,  constitute  a  large 
majority  of  California  shipments  of  late  pears.  Winter  Nelis  and 
Beurre  Hardy  together  make  up  about  one-half. 

A  large  majority  of  the  Bosc  and  over  half  of  the  Anjou  sales 
from  the  Pacific  Coast  originate  in  Oregon.  Cornice  and  Winter  Nelis 
are  the  only  other  late  varieties  of  pears  of  much  importance  in 


9  See  pages  70-75  for  a  discussion  of  seasonal  variation  in  sales  of  the  chief 
Pacific  Coast  late  varieties  on  the  New  York  delivered  auctions  in  1926. 


Bul.  452] 


ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF   THE   PEAR  INDUSTRY 


17 


Oregon.  The  Winter  Nelis,  however,  is  much  more  important  in 
Washington,  where  it  is  the  chief  variety  grown,  with  Anjou  second. 
Washington  produces  practically  all  of  the  Flemish  Beauty  variety 
grown  on  the  Pacific  Coast.  The  output  of  this  variety  is  relatively 
small  but  is  gradually  increasing. 


Sa/es  of  Chief  Late  Var/ef/es  of  Rac/f/c  Coos/ Fleers 
Jby  States,  New  York  Pet/Vered-ducf/ons,  /926.  * 

fffrcenfofToM 

T  .    .                                                                                                            T/>ausof}A  of  /bores 

WW O                 4                 8                  /2                /6                20               24                20               32 

Co/. 
40 

8 

/6 

JO 

too 

9S 
92 

79 

/6 
S6 

80 

4J 

S 

S 

J 

/J 

44 
36 
4 
S 

3 

97 
8 

JCKVS  bates 

3/2.4  W./Ve//s 
27S.4   Anjou 
206.2    Bosc 
/08.5   Com/ce 
7S.S   Hardy 
S/.S   C/o/rgeau 
42.9    EBeurre 
/8.S   FJem/sh 
S6.3   Others 

1        '        1                 1                 1         '        1        '        1         '        1 

wmm 

mmm. 

^^j 

■■■  CaZ/fcr/T/o 

Kffl^Xa    Oregon 

~^    Wojhingfon 

38.J 

J7.J 

F4 

Z/47.8    To/a/ 

r 

Fig.  2. — Winter  Nelis,  Anjou,  and  Bosc,  the  most  important  late  varieties 
grown  on  the  Pacific  Coast  constitute  over  half  of  the  late  pear  crop  of  this  sec- 
tion. A  majority  of  Bosc  and  Anjou  and  a  considerable  volume  of  Cornice  come 
from  Oregon.  California  produces  Winter  Nelis,  Beurre  Hardy,  Cornice,  Clairgeau, 
and  Easter  Beurre  in  large  quantities.  Anjou,  Winter  Nelis,  and  Flemish  are 
important  in  Washington. 

(Data  are  for  the  calendar  year   1926  and  are  from  table  36,  page   107.) 


Status  and  Trend  of  Variety  Plantings  in  California. — The  results 
of  a  valuable  survey  by  the  California  Cooperative  Crop  Reporting 
Service  of  the  pear  acreage  in  the  state  by  varieties  and  ages,  which 
are  shown  in  table  2,  give  an  excellent  basis  for  visualizing  the  relative 
importance  of  the  acreage  of  the  chief  varieties  grown  in  the  state 
at  the  present  time  and  the  probable  changes  in  relative  importance 
in  the  near  future.  Approximately  88  per  cent  of  the  total  pear 
acreage  of  all  ages  in  the  state  is  composed  of  Bartletts  and  the  re- 
maining 12  per  cent  of  fall  and  winter  varieties.  The  tendency  for 
plantings  of  fall  and  winter  varieties  to  increase,  relative  to  those 
of  Bartletts,  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  only  6  per  cent  of  the  state 
acreage  of  pears  11  years  or  older  is  composed  of  late  varieties, 
whereas  8  per  cent  of  the  6  to  10-year-old  trees,  and  20  per  cent  of 
those  less  than  6  years  old,  are  fall  and  winter  varieties. 

Of  the  total  acreage  of  these  late  varieties  in  1927,  24  per  cent  are 
Hardy,  22  per  cent  Winter  Nelis,  16  per  cent  Bosc,  and  8  per  cent 
Anjou.    Clairgeau  and  Easter  Beurre  each  constitute  7  per  cent  and 


18 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


II 

**  ■£ 

1      OOTt<©l^©l^CO©0 

^  &J 

0)  0 

CO    rH                               CO    rH    O 

c*g 

£.% 

$'C 

1      OiH*>f(BNiNO>^ 

■-       c- 

N    0O 

o  03 

55 

|     r<©coco©©'ocoto 

JO           «5 

t-c    00 

E 

oo^t^r^r^i-^^ti^os 

H  > 

o 

•< 

N   t-r                          CO    rH    O 

»3          -*• 

>0           Oi 

lO    "5 

oo^  | 

om^wNH^HKjt 

>0           ~5 

CO    ■*»<             OO             ■*    1(1    m    N     ' 

-.           Oi 

© 

S  2   > 

o3  o 

c 

<3           OS 

CO. 

rH      rH      ©      O      »l^ 

:    oi   ^    O    i 

*»           ^ 

CO    t>- 

o 

:    CO    rH     to     ■ 

S               r. 

© 

CO 

( 

w       <^r 

<N 

CO. 

1 

CM 

IHOHWNO^^S 

3         its 

■**<   © 

o 

:     rH                rH                          lO     lO     <*3     t 

O           OS 

OS 

r,    t 

s 

"1 

oo 

t 

Q           CO 

r^ 

lOWHlOlftNOOOt' 

-           «S 

Cq^llNNCCONXSt 

S           «■ 

© 

O 

rH                                     rH                CO                *^     8 

C 

a       «-i 

co 

n^'tiooNrtoiifl^c 

a       >h 

<°% 

CO 

t-             CO    ©    CO             115    "15    «)    ' 

=5           f- 
!S            ©* 

*       »o            Q. 

3 

lflrtN«00<jH8!0«5« 

o 

D           OS                 U 

©  © 

W    00    N    N    H             -i    OO    <»    • 

H           Z 

a             bO 

rH      © 

rH 

rH               rH               ic     - 

h        »^ 

OJ 

00 

a       y 

a            M 

-H    kO    00    00    CO 

2  °  *5  o 

*       c 

6           -g 

©      T»< 

c3 
01 

O 

ift      ,,<      ^       rt      _ 

^h           <s$    e 

0           •< 

\       8 

© 

>> 

*        c 

c 

©    t»    ©    CO    l>- 

rH      CO      f-      C 

s         ti 

3         5 

3           "£ 

oo  es 

0) 

l«    ^    W    f)    * 

iO    CO     °0     c 

S          o 

© 

0) 

05 

©J  «■ 

*■       ^ 

o 

& 

i        e 

5                i« 

o 

©©COCO«3©00©^*-9 

«        <* 

5         c 

«o  «c 

rH    CO    •>*     rH     rH             O0    N     ®i    C 

5           S 

1           o> 

© 

<< 

OO 

©»     - 

t          * 

»•             u 

O) 

Ph 

tOOMOlMHiOM^- 

i            >t 

J 

CXI    00 

«o<m-<*"©»ccoco>o?^<; 

i           t- 

—I    00 

r- 

rH      rH                                         H                  SO      *• 

©■ 

i 

(■          « 

s 

OOMeoOOMMOl'N* 

3             *- 

©  © 

©l>.rH-«»<cOrHOOCOaof- 

>t 

i 

rH     © 

© 

rH                               rH              «S    » 

3           O 

i 

« 

r    •< 

i 

•*w^HT)imMHOj!ii 

M     H     H                           n     H     >,     v 

3           X 

> 

©  ■<*< 

1      ^ 

»-H      OO 

"3 

H      * 

i 

»T  tc 

i      ?. 

NOJinOlNNNN^lO 

~ 

rH     Oi 

0!ONONtBNO!0- 

o< 

<m  r» 

"* 

-H^rHrH                  rt     IN                  -*     «C 

<; 

r-T     IC 

>        ^ 

CO©©-^<rHCOOOCO»Ct- 

«i 

©   © 

©> 

<M    OO 

co 

M     N                          rH     CO     rH     ©^    C 

er 

•-T    «r 

<c 

OM-*10*00-*^>15V 

(-          Cf 

CO    t>. 

©   ©   rH                 t^ooeox: 

oc 

<M    t^ 

CO 

U5      ■*<                             rH      CO      rH      tj      — 

tc 

*4"    X 

5C 

©  "3    00 

cm  5  M 

Ot^t^.r^o««<^<^<eor- 

rH     © 

COOO<MrHkOcOOOrH~=*-C 

CM    t>- 

©J2    C 

CO      CM                             ^      rH      rH      *-.      • 

■ 

-(V" 

«4  -* 

■      «c 

1 

aj 

EQ 

.2 

« 

.2 

.2 

'C 

>> 

E 

> 

03 
> 

0> 

> 

3 
G 

'S 

< 

►2  ° 
K  PQ 

S3 

1 

6 

3 
V 

PQ 

a 

"a 

a 

4) 
3 

-a  Z 

"5 

tr 

01 

fl 
r« 

T3    -2 

3333CmCZ3S 

c 

03 

a  1 

1 

pq 

CJ 

PQ 

4) 

PQ 

01 

PQ 

3 

93 

[S 

< 

fe  PQ 

3 

S3     03 

fe  PQ 

o  ~ 

-r>        0> 


r2        3 

=3  O 
1^ 
olj 

w  * 

4)  *0 
4)      95 

PQ  "aSj 

■si?: 


IS 


BUL.  452]  ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF  THE  PEAR  INDUSTRY  19 

Cornice  6  per  cent,  while  other  varieties  as  a  group  make  up  the 
balance  of  10  per  cent  of  the  acreage  of  all  late  varieties.10  The  rela- 
tive plantings  of  Anjou,  Clairgeau,  and  Cornice  have  declined  in  the 
last  decade.  They  constitute  39  per  cent  of  the  total  acreage  of  late 
varieties  11  years  of  age  and  over,  and  only  21  per  cent  for  all  ages. 
Winter  Nelis  also  shows  a  relative  decline  as  the  percentages  corre- 
sponding to  these  age  groups  are  26  and  22  respectively.  In  the  case 
of  the  group  of  unnamed  miscellaneous  varieties  the  same  tendency 
is  shown  by  the  percentages  18  and  10  respectively.  The  relative 
decline  in  the  four  varieties  mentioned  above  and  the  unnamed  miscel- 
laneous varieties  is  indicated  by  the  fact  that  as  a  group  they  account 
for  83  per  cent  of  the  acreage  of  late  varieties  11  years  or  older, 
whereas  they  constitute  only  53  per  cent  of  the  acreage  of  all  ages. 
Each  of  the  three  late  varieties — Hardy,  Clairgeau,  and  Easter 
Beurre — constitutes  an  increased  proportion  of  the  plantings  of  the 
last  decade.  Whereas  the  three  constitute  but  27  per  cent  of  the 
acreage  of  late  varieties  11  years  or  older,  they  account  for  47  per  cent 
of  the  total  acreage  of  all  ages.  Bosc  and  Beurre  Hardy  have  both 
become  more  popular.  Only  6  per  cent  of  the  acreage  of  late  varieties 
in  the  older  age  group  are  Bosc,  compared  with  16  per  cent  of  that 
of  all  ages.  The  corresponding  figures  for  Beurre  Hardy  are  17  and 
24,  respectively.  Nielsen,11  however,  in  making  his  survey  of  the  pear 
acreage  of  the  state,  found  that  some  growers  intended  to  graft  their 
recent  Beurre  Hardy  plantings  to  other  varieties. 


TREND    OF    PRODUCTION    IN    CHIEF    SECTIONS 

Growth  of  Commercial  Acreage  and  Decline  in  Non-Commercial. — 
The  growth  of  the  pear  industry  in  the  United  States  from  1910  to 
1920  is  best  visualized  by  the  increase  in  the  number  of  bearing  pear 
trees  as  recorded  by  the  Federal  Census  Bureau.12  Table  3  shows 
that  during  this  decade  pear  production  Avas  increasing  rapidly  in 

i(>  This  miscellaneous  group  of  "late"  varieties  includes  a  number  of  early 
pears,  a  few  of  which  are  grown  in  California.  The  more  important  of  these, 
judging  from  delivered-auction  sales,  are  Madeleine,  Lawson  (Comet),  Wilder,  and 
Clapps  Favorite,  which  ripen  in  June  and  July. 

ii  Kaufman,  E.  E.  California  crop  report  for  1926.  California  Dept.  Agr., 
Spec.  Pub.  74:  38.     1927. 

12  The  trend  of  bearing  acreage  indicated  by  the  Federal  Censuses  of  19l<> 
and  1920  for  the  Pacific  Coast,  and  particularly  for  California,  differs  greatly 
from  the  trend  of  the  production  estimates  of  the  Federal  Crop  Reporting  Service 
from  1910  to  1916.  Other  fairly  reliable  data  for  the  Pacific  Coast  confirm  tin- 
general  trend  of  bearing  acreage  indicated  by  the  Census  data  and  hence  the 
federal  crop  estimates  of  pear  production  have'  not  been  used  for  the  years  1910 
to  1916.  The  author  has  revised  the  estimates  for  California  only.  These  appear 
in  tables  5,  p.  27,  and  30,  p.  101. 


20 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


a 

03   M 

M  G 

fl"E 


!S3 

Ph  ° 


2P" 


Oh  ° 


k  °o 


tD  -»J  "-< 

Pm  c» 


floi  — 


N*(Di9lflnM««M«    —    —    —    ©    ©    © 


CO    —     CO    ■«*<     —    — 


r~  —  ©•tf<o>»f)r^t^©©  —  •>it<aoif)if)cooi 

Ol    to    N    h    itt«if)COOOlf)aOCO©aOOO©aOif) 

nnfraNOONtee^i^^MNNH 


oot-^©cor^os©r~cooaco 

NnMNNHNHHOO 


O    tv    o>    if)    t» 


©    t^    ©    CN 


0>^NlflWON«N 


if)    ao    ©    c©    — 

CO    N    U5    O    Ol 
"     *    O)    O    N 


M     Ol    if)    N 


00t^©lf)"*f<if)CO© 
NI0050»CNN!0 

■*  >o  n  ■*  cc  a  ^ 


t-  CO  CO  CO  t-  —  O 


<N  o  o  -*f< 

■*  00  N  IN 

f  ®  M  N 


H  00  N  h  O0  N  ~i 
O*  of  if)  O  CN  CN  SO 


<n  oo  if) 


S§  2 


^  t^  o 

oo  a  d 


O  if)  if)  t- 


0>  ©  if)  OS  © 

H   *   W   H   ^ 

—  if)  if)  —  if) 


N  If)  tO  »  ■"!  <3J 
00  —  t—  CN  OS  OS 
*  M  ■*  N  Ol  to 


wtontiwotN** 


"5    if)    CO    if)    r>- 


OS    OS    <M    CO    if) 


©    O0    if)    OS 


tN.tv.05 


0000M0!O"Ch0110O 


»    N    CO    ^    tN    N 
t—    CO    00    —    O     " 


!3i    rt    tN    CO    tN    h    r. I    H 


t»    O0    O    N    N    O    * 


—     —     CN    CN 


-H^^iOCNNCO^QOrt 
to  CO  *  CO  »  O  h  oooo 
StO<t»NtON*(OtNtO 


U)  if)  W  >h 


if)  00  CO  t^ 
O  r-  co  tM 

CO  N  OO  N 


io  CO  tO  CO 
N  B)  CO  «  CO  N 


-<  N  if)  O)  t£i  r< 
—  CO  O  ■>*  CO  if) 

CO  CO  CO  tN  H 


lOCO»if)C001COHNSOOtJ»CO 
Slf)COt«N'C^«)t*CO*C<)Ci)NtN 


»NO«tNCNtO00NtOhOrt 
O>iOKl-H0CtOt»if)Nt»'HtON 
OstMT»<f»OOCOt^cO    —    OtMCN 


if)  O!  to  to 
CO  ©  u)  if) 
t^     CO    CO    tM 


00if<00O5©O5©cNr>-OS 
©■»*l©COcOt^CNCO©t^ 


co    os   o   r- 


CO     —     ■«*     OS 

O    tO    if)    to 
O    CO    t^    co 


ono»cohco» 

OOMCOOiMOOO* 
«ONt»tN*OlO 


OONNlOCOtNTliM 

t»    O    -i     O     N    O0    CO    CO 
COlfJtONtOCOtNCO 


tN  00  ID  «  »  O  h 
N  CO  if)  N  CO  Ol  N 
CN    tN    tN    N    h  r-l 


if)    tO    to    tN 


IN    O!    (31 


O    if)    to    U) 


t—    *»<    if)    00    ■«»<    — 


oo   co   ©    ■<*< 


OOCOtONCOCOtNOllf) 
h  N  tN  »  Ol  O0  "fl 
tO    h    N    U)    *    O    CO 


O  h  O  CO 

h  ^l  O  N 

t»  M  tN  N 

—  cN 


o  os  OS  ot> 


CO  •*  H  If)  t»  O)  N 
tN  tN  a  O!  io  to  t 
—     —    ^    CO    00    OO    ©J 


•»t<    00    if)    CO    if)    tv    ©* 

rt    CO    CO    N    N    O)    X) 

o  o  o  >f)  -^  co  o 


N   N    10    N    tN    N 

O    N    CO     O    0O    O) 


to  to   *   *   oo  oo 
a  h  if   n  oo  t> 

OS     ■»*<     ©     tv     CO     O 


r^    as   ©   os   t^   ■*»< 

O)    TC    t»    t3!    ^    « 
rt    *     N    OO    N    II) 


CN    CN    00    CO    O    1H 


CM    CO     O 

■*  »  d 


—  00  O  OS  O  r+  O) 
if)  If)  tN  CO  S  ^  O 
tN    ^     -<    to    N    CO    ~t 


o  m  co  to 


00    if)    O    CO 


if)    O     tN     CO 


t^    O    CO 

co"  cn  t»t 


o  —  o 

t^    O0    CN 

r^    CO    OS    if) 


S    O    tO    N 
-     —    if)     — , 


O   ft 

0/  3 

■5  o 


e  _> 

3  *  3  s  I  S  o 


is  'S 


T3     OJ 
08     P     IS 

SQOP 


QQ 


<jP5bQWfe^ 


-a  ..a 

Sol 

ill 

o    S 

Jsl 

C3«2 

So  i 


f 


,  '5  ts 

in 

08  3-£ 

OS  fl 
«  c  6 

c8   O   oj 

5  5  is 


3sl 

I      I      I 


II 

ol 
■SJ8 

■  ?i 

I  it 

*   as 

...    3"^ 

go    ti  gj 

a*2  ssp 

38  fl 

la  « 

to  O  .03 
M.S  Pot 
Gs    -  « 

•3  &  «S  ° 

03  t>   "i  c3 


.sa 


>2 

ll 

g.S 

CD    >, 

J! 

03    Im 

°a 

ft  OS   .. 

■a  »>  h  on   i-   . 

c  «5  S  a  *T  § 

©t-Sja-g)  *  3 
•3-  *-  a  Q.g 

^ooo3   ..  &) 

.23331  52 

«<jmo 


^1 


BUL.  452]  ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF  THE  PEAR  INDUSTRY  21 

the  three  Pacific  Coast  states  only.  A  slight  increase,  however,  was 
recorded  in  Colorado  and  also  in  New  York,  the  only  state  east  of 
the  Rockies  showing  any  increase  whatever  in  pear  acreage.  During 
the  same  period,  however,  the  bearing  trees  in  every  other  state  showed 
a  noticeable  decline,  the  number  in  this  group  of  states  being  nearly 
30  per  cent  less  in  1920  than  in  1910. 

Increase  in  Total  and  in  Commercial  Production. — Although  the 
total  number  of  bearing  pear  trees  in  the  United  States  in  1920  was 
not  quite  so  great  as  in  1910,  the  total  pear  crop,  and  particularly  the 
commercial  output,  actually  expanded  appreciably  during  this  decade. 
This  increased  output  came  about  mainly  because  the  decrease  of  about 
2.5  million  bearing  trees  which  occurred  east  of  the  Rocky  Mountain, 
chiefly  in  low-yielding,  non-commercial  producing  areas,  was  replaced 
in  large  part  by  heavy-yielding,  commercial  orchards.  Much  of  the 
new  commercial  producing  area  is  on  the  Pacific  Coast. 

Rapid  Expansion  on  Pacific  Coast. — Expansion  of  the  commercial 
pear  industry  between  1910  and  1920  took  place  most  rapidly  on  the 
Pacific  Coast.  The  bearing  acreage  of  trees  in  this  section  practically 
doubled  in  this  decade  (table  3).  The  3.9  million  bearing  pear  trees 
in  the  Pacific  Coast  states  in  1920  were  1.9  million  more  than  in  1910, 
constituting  nearly  27  per  cent  of  the  national  total  of  bearing  trees, 
compared  with  only  13  per  cent  in  1910.  About  one-half  of  this 
increase  occurred  in  Oregon  and  Washington  and  the  other  half  in 
California.  While  the  number  of  bearing  trees  in  New  York  and 
Colorado  in  1920  was  only  about  IV3  times  the  number  in  1910,  in 
California  the  number  was  1%  times  as  great  in  1920  as  in  1910,  in 
Oregon  it  was  about  2%  times  as  great,  and  in  Washington  practically 
3  times  as  great. 

FORECAST   OF    PRODUCTION    FOR    CHIEF    SECTIONS 

Purpose,  Basis,  and  Limitations  of  Forecast. — Since  the  chief 
factor  affecting  the  trend  of  pear  prices  in  the  next  few  years  will 
probably  be  the  supplies  available  for  the  market,  California  pear 
growers  are  interested  in  the  probable  trend  of  production  in  the 
United  States  and  particularly  on  the  Pacific  Coast.  It  is  rather 
generally  recognized  that  a  substantial  increase  in  production  may 
be  expected  on  the  Pacific  Coast,  but  no  quantitative  forecasts  for 
this  section  or  for  the  United  States  as  a  whole  seem  to  be  available.13 


13  California  is  the  only  state  for  which  fairly  reliable  estimates  of  the  bearing 
and  non-bearing  acreage  of  pears  and  of  other  important  tree-fruits  is  available 
for  a  series  of  years.  (See  tables  5,  p.  27,  and  34,  p.  105,  for  these  pear  data 
for  California.)  One  of  the  most  needed  improvements  in  estimating  tree-fruit 
production  in  most  other  states  is  an  adequate  and  reliable  statistical  base  for 
determining  the  trend  of  production  of  each  fruit. 


22 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


sr'afe  of  C/?(7/7g^e  //?  Fbar  f^rodvcf/on , 


zo 


I* 


RaerfiG  Coasr    —  <Oa/i-fornia ,    Wdshingfon   and  Oregon        ^ 


I        I        I 


I       I       I       F 


fsf/mo/ed  faJ/Crop  P. 


<Shipmerrfcs*. 

h-*» 


-Produafion 


I       I       I       I 


frxxba&fe  7?t°/W  of 

Bearing    Trees, 

/9ZO  fo  1930 


.  Apparent   Trend  of 
Bearing   Trees,   /9iO    ~fo  t9ZO 


J I L 


I       I L 


ZO 


Unified Bfafes,  Exciusive  of  Pacific   Coasf 


I* 

R  e 


§ 


— \ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Tsf /mated  Tuii-Oop  \  **ZZfa 

1 1 1 1 

*^= 

— i — i — i — i — 

tr — 

Lr* — t-T" 

™"    T^^    —           ^_ 

'-*      • 

•-                 -    ■■■■    ™ 

/ 

•  Pro^Z<^Tic>n1^  -J 

A  ■        ■ — "   " 

f 

^Apparent  7> 

e/70  of            Jr 

&ear/>7?  Tree 
/$/Ofo/S20 

3j                   ^^ 

^                 / 

\     /                        r->         1 

/ 

f?/e   Trend  of 

\§             fyv/bOA 

A 

/920  fo/SSO 

i 
1 
§ 

\ 

Shipments^     » 
> 

y         y 

\ 

\ 

\ 

1 I I 1 

I 

1,          1            1            1 

i     i....,j i 

i      i      i      i 

zo 


/9/0   //     /Z    /3     /4    f5     t&     17    (8     19    ZO    Zl    ZZ    Z3   Z4   Z5    Z6    Z7   Z3   Z9  SO 


Fig.  3. — The  data  pictured  above  have  been  used  as  the  basis  of  the  forecast 
of  probable  average  pear  production  discussed  in  the  text.  In  estimating  the 
probable  trend  of  increase  in  the  number  of  bearing  trees  from  1920  to  1930  it  is 
assumed  that  the  number  of-  bearing  trees  in  1930  will  be  approximately  equal 
to  the  total  number  of  bearing  and  non-bearing  trees  reported  in  1925  by  the 
Federal  Agricultural  Census. 

(Data  from  table  3,  page  20,  table  4,  page  25,  table  30,  page  101,  and  table  32,  page  103.) 


BUL.  452 J  ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF  THE  PEAR  INDUSTRY  23 

However,  a  careful  study  of  the  data  from  federal  sources  pictured 
in  figure  3,  together  with  supplementary  data  on  the  pear  acreage  of 
the  three  Pacific  Coast  states  drawn  from  state  sources,  seems  to 
justify  the  forecasts  of  production  which  are  given  in  the  following 
discussion.14 

Trend  on  Pacific  Coast  compared  with  All  Other  States. — During 
the  last  decade  the  production  and  bearing  acreage  of  pears  have 
increased  much  more  rapidly  on  the  Pacific  Coast  than  in  the  rest 
of  the  United  States,  and  apparently  they  will  continue  to  do  so  for 
several  years.  On  the  Pacific  Coast,  both  bearing  acreage  and  produc- 
tion have  been  increasing  about  10  per  cent  each  year,  although  in 
the  rest  of  the  United  States  they  have  increased  at  a  rate  of  less  than 
2  per  cent  a  year  since  1918.  Figure  3  indicates  that  apparently  the 
trend  of  bearing  acreage  and  production  in  each  of  these  sections  will 
continue  upward  at  about  these  same  rates  until  1930,  at  least.  If  this 
should  occur,  the  average  pear  crop  of  the  three  Pacific  Coast  states, 
which  was  somewhat  over  11  million  bushels  (about  275,000  tons) 
for  1924-1926,  will  be  about  18  million  bushels  (nearly  450,000  tons) 
in  the  three-year  period  centering  in  1930. 15     The  production  of  the 


14  Significance  of  Semi-Logarithmic  or  Ratio  Charts. — In  picturing  statistical 
data  one  frequently  wishes  to  emphasize  comparisons  of  percentage  or  propor- 
tional changes  rather  than  absolute  amounts.  For  the  purpose  of  showing  such 
relative  changes  a  ratio  scale,  such  as  the  vertical  scale  in  figure  3,  is  most 
useful.  Equal  vertical  distances  on  the  semi-logarithmic  paper  on  which  the 
figure  is  plotted  picture  equal  percentages  (rates)  of  change.  For  convenience 
in  plotting  and  reading,  however,  the  scale  has  been  numbered  in  actual  bushels. 
With  the  usual  or  arithmetic  scale  on  ordinary  cross-section  paper,  such  as  was 
used  in  figure  16,  the  distance  between  the  vertical  lines  2  and  4  is  pictured  as 
twice  as  great  as  the  distance  from  1  to  2.  In  figure  3,  however,  which  is  plotted 
on  semi-logarithmic  paper,  the  vertical  distance  from  2  to  4  is  just  equal  to  the 
distance  from  1  to  2  for  the  reason  that  2  bears  the  same  relationship  to  4  that 
1  does  to  2.  It  is  obvious  that  2  is  twice  as  great  as  1;  in  other  words,  2  is  100 
per  cent  greater  than  1.  Likewise,  4  is  twice  as  great  as  2;  or,  in  other  words,  4 
is  100  per  cent  greater.  Equal  distances  on  the  scale  correspond  to  equal  relative 
or  percentage  changes,  and  not,  as  in  figure  16,  page  59,  to  equal  differences  in 
the  absolute  number  of  boxes.  Equal  percentage  increases  over  a  series  of  years, 
when  plotted  on  semi-logarithmic  paper,  are  shown  as  a  straight  line. 

15  The  term  'average  production'  as  used  in  this  discussion  refers  to  the  prob- 
able size  of  crop,  the  one  which  would  be  produced  if  yields  per  bearing  acre 
remained  the  same  as  the  average  in  recent  years,  and  full-bearing  acreage  alone 
changed.  (The  actual  crop  from  any  given  acreage  in  any  particular  year  is 
seldom  the  same  as  the  average.  Numerous  factors  which  affect  yields,  such  as 
weather  conditions,  pests  and  diseases,  and  methods  of  pruning,  spraying,  and 
culture  vary  from  year  to  year  and  from  place  to  place.)  This  concept  of  average 
is  well  illustrated  by  the  'average'  California  pear  crop  for  any  given  year  from 
1910  to  1926  as  indicated  by  the  line  of  trend  fitted  to  the  actual  production  data 
pictured  in  figure  3,  page  22.  If,  in  1931,  it  were  found  that  the  'average'  pear 
production  for  1930  indicated  by  a  line  of  trend  fitted  at  that  time  to  actual 
annual  production  figures  through  1931  for  a  period  of  ten  or  fifteen  years  was 
somewhere  near  the  forecast  of  the  probable  'average'  crop  of  1930  which  has  been 
made  in  this  study,  it  would  prove  this  forecast  to  be  reasonably  correct. 

(Footnote  continued  at  bottom  of  next  page.) 


24  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

rest  of  the  country  may  then  average  slightly  more  than  the  10.4 
million  bushels  (about  250,000  tons)  average  for  1924-1926.  It  would 
not  be  surprising  if  the  production  of  pears  in  the  United  States 
averaged  about  28  million  bushels  (about  700,000  tons)  by  1930  or 
1931.  By  that  time  the  Pacific  Coast,  which  now  produces  slightly 
more  than  half  of  the  national  pear  crop,  will  probably  produce  nearly 
65  per  cent. 

Trend  in  Oregon  and  Washington. — California  is  particularly 
interested  in  the  pear  industry  in  the  Pacific  Northwest  because  this 
section  is  her  only  important  competitor  in  canning  Bartletts  and  in 
shipments  of  fresh  Bartletts  to  eastern  markets  in  August.  Increasing 
production  of  fall  and  winter  varieties  in  the  Northwest  is  also  to  a 
considerable  extent  in  direct  competition  with  California  pears  of 
this  kind.  A  study  of  the  trend  of  production  and  apparent  bearing 
acreage  in  Washington  and  in  Oregon  similar  to  that  made  of  the 
Pacific  Coast  as  a  whole,  indicates  that  the  pear  industry  is  growing 
at  a  more  rapid  rate  in  Oregon  than  in  Washington.  The  production 
in  Washington,  which  has  averaged  about  2.4  million  bushels  (nearly 
60,000  tons),  or  about  11  per  cent  of  the  national  pear  crop  in  the 
three  years  1924-1926,  seems  to  be  increasing  at  the  rate  of  about 
10  per  cent  each  j^ear.  This  rate,  if  continued,  would  result  in  an 
average  crop  in  the  neighborhood  of  4  million  bushels  (nearly  100,000 
tons)  in  the  three-year  period  1929-1931.  Production  in  Oregon, 
which  has  averaged  about  1.6  million  bushels  (nearly  40,000  tons) 
for  the  years  1924-1926,  or  over  7  per  cent  of  the  national  crop,  has 


(Footnote  continued  from  the  preceding  page.) 

It  should  be  clearly  understood  that  this  concept  of  an  'average'  crop  differs 
greatly  from  that  of  a  'normal'  or  'full'  crop  as  used  by  the  Division  of  Crop 
Estimates  of  the  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture  in  reporting  the 
percentage  which  the  yield  per  acre  at  any  given  time  appears  to  be  of  a  'normal' 
or  'full'  crop.  The  Department  of  Agriculture  states  that  as  used  in  their  crop 
reports  a  'normal'  or  'full  crop'  is  "the  typical  crop  represented  by  the  average 
of  a  series  of  good  crops,  leaving  out  of  consideration  altogether  the  occasional 
bumper  crop  and  more  or  less  frequent  partial  crop  failures.  This  expected  yield 
at  planting  time,  the  full  crop  that  the  farmer  has  in  mind  when  he  thinks  of  the 
yield  that  he  expects  to  harvest,  or  the  typical  crop  represented  by  the  average  of 
good  crops  only,  is  the  'normal,'  or  standard  adopted  by  the  bureau  for  express- 
ing conditions  during  the  growing  season  and  yield  at  harvest  time. ' ' 

For  a  more  complete  explanation  of  this  somewhat  elusive  concept  of  a  'full' 
or  'normal'  crop — which  is  seldom  realized — see:  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Government 
crop  reports;  their  value,  scope,  and  preparation.  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  Bur.  Crop 
Estimates,  Cir.  17  (revised)  :  21.     1915. 

During  the  last  10  years  the  actual  average  production  of  pears  in  the  United 
States  has  been  only  68.7  per  cent  of  a  'full  crop,'  on  the  Pacific  Coast  86  per 
cent,  and  in  California  87  per  cent.  Study  of  figure  3  should  bring  out  the  differ- 
ence between  the  'average'  California  pear  crop  as  indicated  by  the  line  of  trend 
fitted  to  the  estimates  of  actual  production  and  the  estimates  of  a  'normal'  or 
'  full '  crop  shown  in  table  4. 


Bul.  452] 


ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF   THE   PEAR  INDUSTRY 


25 


increased  at  the  rate  of  about  12  per  cent  a  year  since  1918.  At  this 
rate  the  crop  average  by  1930  (computed  on  the  basis  of  the  crops 
of  1929-1931)  might  easily  amount  to  between  2.5  and  3  million 
bushels  (between  60,000  and  75,000  tons). 

TABLE  4 

Estimated  Full  Crops  of  Pears  by  Chief  States  and  Sections,  1917-1927 


United  States: 

Per  cent  of  full  crop.. 

Calculated  full  cropt 
Pacific  Coast: 

Per  cent  of  full  crop. 

Calculated  full  cropt 
Washington: 

Per  cent  of  full  crop... 

Calculated  full  cropt 
Oregon: 

Per  cent  of  full  crop... 

Calculated  full  cropt 
California: 

Per  cent  of  full  crop... 

Calculated  full  cropt 
New  York: 

Per  cent  of  full  crop... 

Calculated  full  cropt. 
All  but  Pacific  Coast: 

Per  cent  of  full  crop. 

Calculated  full  cropt 


1927* 

1926 

1925 

1924 

1923 

1922 

1921 

1920 

1919 

1918 

56.8 

83.6 

70.2 

70  0 

68.8 

86.3 

48.2 

82.9 

68.2 

62.1 

31.8 

30  2 

29.5 

26.9 

25.9 

24.0 

23.4 

20.3 

22  0 

21.5 

63.5 

91  3 

81.3 

80.0 

89.0 

102.8 

68.2 

79.3 

90  7 

85.4 

17.0 

15  3 

13.9 

10.6 

11.0 

9  1 

8.9 

7.6 

7.9 

7.3 

41.0 

90.0 

75.0 

80.0 

89.0 

80.0 

80.0 

71  0 

85  0 

90  0 

3.8 

3.6 

3.1 

2.2 

3.0. 

2.2 

2.1 

1.6 

2.1 

1.4 

75  0 

100  0 

75.0 

80.0 

85  0 

85.0 

80.0 

70  0 

70.0 

85.0 

2.5 

2.1 

2.0 

1.5 

1.9 

1.6 

1.0 

11 

1.1 

0.8 

69.0 

90  0 

85.0 

80  0 

90  0 

118.0 

63.0 

85  0 

98.0 

84.1 

10  6 

9.6 

8.9 

6.9 

6  1 

5.3 

5.7 

4.9 

4.7 

5  0 

52  0 

58  0 

78  0 

62.0 

39.0 

93.0 

50  0 

95  0 

60  0 

53  0 

3  6 

3.6 

3.9 

3.4 

2.6 

3.4 

3.3 

2.9 

3  0 

2  5 

49.2 

75.7 

60  3 

63.6 

53.8 

76  3 

35  6 

84.9 

55  7 

50  2 

14  8 

14  9 

15.6 

16.3 

14  9 

14.9 

14  5 

12.7 

14.1 

14.2 

1917 


68.2 
20.3 


59.0 
5.9 


85.0 
1.2 


72.0 
0.8 


95.0 
3.9 


67  0 
2  5 


59.3 
14  4 


*  The  calculated  full  crops  for  1927  are  based  on  preliminary  production  estimates  and  hence  are 
subject  to  revision. 

t  The  calculated  full  crops  are  given  in  millions  of  bushels  (i.  e.,  .000,000  omitted). 

Sources  of  data:  Data  on  per  cent  of  a  full  crop  compiled  from  the  November  issues  of  the  monthly 
reports  of  the  Federal  Crop  Estimating  Service.  See  Crops  and  Markets  and  its  predecessors.  A  brief 
discussion  of  the  meaning  of  a  "full  crop"  is  given  in  footnote  15,  page  23. 

Full  crops  are  computed  by  dividing  the  latest  production  estimates  for  any  given  year  (table  30, 
page  101)  by  the  per  cent  of  a  full  crop  and  multiplying  by  100. 


Comparison  of  Production  and  Shipments  on  Pacific  Coast  and  in 
Other  States. — Curves  showing  carlot  shipments  have  been  included 
in  figure  3  to  show  how  closely  the  trend  of  pear  production  on  the 
Pacific  Coast  has  paralleled  that  of  shipments.16  There  seems  to  be 
less  of  a  tendency  for  shipments  to  move  up  and  down  with  production 
in  the  rest  of  the  United  States  than  on  the  Pacific  Coast.  In  nearly 
every  one  of  the  last  nine  years  Pacific  Coast  pear  shipments  have 
risen  or  fallen  somewhat  in  proportion  to  changes  in  production,  and 


i6  See  table  32,  page  103,  for  United  States  shipments  of  pears  by  chief  sec- 
tions, 1917-1927,  and  table  30,  page  101,  for  United  States  pear  production  by 
chief  states  and  groups,  1917-1927. 


26 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


as  a  result  the  trends  of  the  two  have  been  nearly  parallel.17  This 
fairly  consistent  relationship  between  production  and  shipments  is 
obviously  helpful  as  a  means  of  forecasting  what  pear  shipments  from 
this  section  are  likely  to  be  on  the  basis  of  production  forecasts  and, 
likewise,  as  a  means  of  revising  production  estimates  on  the  basis  of 
reported  carlot  shipments. 


California  Pear  Production  t  Bearing  Acreage,    19/0  -to  J9Z7  * 
Forecasted  Bearing  Acreage,    1928  fa  /930 


43 
I5 


0    3 


ISO 

(~ 

• 

JT*t /mated    tu/fCrop  \Actuat~*z=^ 

•^•^ 

\Trend-\         *1 

**~^±-> 

«rt 

t<i 

V^ 

•,  ,^-v./_„  /Ac-fua/ 

^:^f 

^ff- 

iuai-,on  lT-r<^-4S^3fr>G.-J 

so? 

<£>< 

k 

W/^^ 

"°\ 

/               A 

"Bearing  Acre*. 

7ge 

1 

^ 

1.. 1     .        1              1 

1         1         !         1 

1       1       I       1 

1       1       i       i 

/CO  g 

Jo 

iz    /s    14    ts    /e    tr    /a    19   zo    zi    zz  zs   Z4   zs  ze  zt  za  z&  /930 


Fig.  4. — The  average  California  pear  crop  increased  from  about  51,000  tons 
in  1910  to  about  175,000  tons  in  1926.  An  average  crop  in  1930  may  be  in  the 
neighborhood  of  250,000  tons. 

(Data  from  table  5.) 


Trend  of  California  Acreage  and  Production. — The  rapid  rate  of 
increase  in  the  bearing  acreage  and  production  of  pears  in  California 
since  1910  is  pictured  in  figure  4.  The  bearing  acreage  of  pears,  which 
was  somewhat  over  14,000  acres  in  1910,  had  risen  to  over  29,000  by 
1920.  In  1925  it  totalled  over  48,000  acres,  and  estimates  of  the 
California  Cooperative  Crop  Reporting  Service  place  it  at  77,000 
acres  by  1930. 

Production  in  the  state  in  the  last  sixteen  years  has  moved  steadily 
upward  at  a  rate  of  about  8  per  cent  a  year,  or  at  about  the  rate  of 

17  In  judging  the  trend  of  shipments  as  shown  by  the  curves  in  figure  3,  it 
must  be  remembered  that  the  data  on  carlot  shipments  before  1920  are  probably 
somewhat  incomplete.  Likewise,  both  production  and  shipments  of  pears  in  1926 
were  abnormally  large  because  of  unusually  favorable  conditions  for  production 
throughout  the  country.  The  facts  that  data  on  shipments  for  1918  and  1919  are 
incomplete  and  that  those  for  1926  are  unusually  large  give  the  impression  of  a 
more  rapid  upward  trend  in  shipments  during  this  period  than  probably  occurred. 


Bul.  451 


ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF  THE  PEAR  INDUSTRY 


27 


increase  recorded  by  the  bearing  acreage.  Since  1918,  however,  pro- 
duction has  increased  more  than  9  per  cent  a  year.  Whereas  an 
average  crop  in  1910  was  somewhat  over  51,000  tons,  in  1920  it  was 
109,000  tons  and  in  1926  about  175,000  tons.18  Production  and  bear- 
ing acreage  both  doubled  in  the  decade  from  1910  to  1920,  and  in  the 
five  years  from  1920  to  1925  production  increased  nearly  50  per  cent 
and  bearing  acreage  over  60  per  cent. 


TABLE  5 

California  Production  and  Bearing  Acreage  of  Pears,  1909-1927, 
and  Forecasted  Bearing  Acreage,  1928-1930 


Bearing  acreage 

Production 

Year 

Per  cent  of 

Thousands 

1910  and 

of  bushels 

Per  cent 

Acres 

1914 

(i.e.,  000 

Tons 

of  1910-14 

average 

omitted) 

average 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

1910-14 

average 

15,178 

100 

2,524 

63,060 

100 

1909 

2,202 

55,100 

87 

1910 

14,100 

93 

2,193 

54,800 

87 

1911 

2,514 

62,800 

99 

1912 

2,818 

70,400 

111 

1913 

2,259 

56,400 

89 

1914 

16,246 

107 

2,836 

70,900 

112 

1915 

18,029 

119 

2,367 

65,900 

104 

1916 

18,039 

119 

3,345 

83,600 

132 

1917 

20,228 

133 

3,665 

91,700 

145 

1918 

22,416 

148 

4,240 

101,000 

161 

1919 

23,056 

152 

4,600 

115,000 

182 

1920 

29,366 

193 

4,080 

102,000 

162 

1921 

31,718 

209 

3,570 

86,000 

141 

1922 

38,591 

254 

6,250 

150,000 

248 

1923 

41,831 

276 

5,542 

133,000 

220 

1924 

44,315 

292 

5,542 

133,000 

220 

1925 

48,277 

318 

7,542 

181,000 

298 

1926 

53,608 

354 

8,625 

207,000 

356 

1927 

58,138 

384 

7,339 

176,000 

291 

1928 

65,200 

430 

1929 

71,700 

473 

1930 

77,400 

510 

Sources  of  data:  Col.  2— Data  for  1910  from  U.  S.  Census,  see  footnote  to  table  3,  page  20;  for  1914-1930 
from  Kaufman,  E.  E.,  California  crop  report  for  1926.   California  Dept.  Agr.     Spec.  Pub.  74:  25-26.   1927. 

Col.  4.— From  table  30,  page  101. 

Col.  5.— Data  in  col.  4  converted  to  tons  at  the  rate  of  40  bushels  per  ton,  1909-1917  and  41.7  for  1918- 
1926. 

Figure  4  shows  graphically  that  if  the  production  of  California 
were  to  continue  to  increase  at  the  same  annual  rate  from  1926  to 


'«  These  tonnages  are  approximately  equivalent  to  2  million  bushels  in   1910, 
to  4.5  in  1920,  and  to  7.3  in  1926. 


28  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

1930  as  it  did  from  1910  to  1926,  an  average  pear  crop  by  1930  would 
be  slightly  over  10  million  bushels  (about  250,000  tons),  or  consider- 
ably more  than  double  the  production  in  1920  and  over  10  per  cent 
greater  than  the  abnormally  large  crop  of  1926.  On  the  other  hand, 
if  the  increase  in  production  of  pears  proceeds  at  the  rapid  rate  indi- 
cated by  the  trend  of  bearing  acreage  and  production  in  the  last  10 
years,  one  may  accept  an  even  larger  average  pear  crop  by  1930 — one 
perhaps  as  large  as  12  million  bushels.  Such  a  large  crop,  however, 
would  be  dependent  upon  a  maintenance  of  the  average  yields  per 
acre  of  the  last  decade. 

Factors  Which  May  Change  Future  California  Yields  per  Acre. — 
It  seems  difficult  to  forecast  with  any  exactness  the  probable  trend 
in  the  average  yield  per  bearing  acre  of  pear  trees  in  the  state  in  the 
next  few  years.  Factors  which  may  be  tending  to  decrease  this  aver- 
age yield  are  the  apparent  increase  in  the  proportion  of  bearing  trees 
which  have  not  yet  reached  full-bearing  age,  and  the  possibility  of  an 
increasing  proportional  loss  of  trees  due  either  to  Japanese  or  other 
rootstock  which  may  be  poorly  adapted  to  the  section  in  which  it  has 
been  used,19  or  to  the  effects  of  sour  sap.  Factors  which  may  be  tend- 
ing to  increase  the  average  yield  per  acre  of  pears  in  the  state  are  the 
increasing  proportion  of  the  bearing  acreage  grown  in  high-yielding 
sections  which  are  well  adapted  to  pear  production,20  and  an  increase  in 
interplanting  of  cross-pollinating  varieties,21  and  a  decrease  in  losses 
from  pear  blight  as  the  result  of  improved  methods  of  prevention  and 
control.  Lack  of  adequate  facts  regarding  these  two  groups  of  oppos- 
ing forces  and  the  difficulty  of  accurately  measuring  those  that  are 
available  makes  somewhat  uncertain  the  answer  to  the  question  of 
what  the  probable  net  effect  of  these  factors  will  be. 


19  The  Division  of  Pomology  of  the  University  of  California  has  found  consider- 
able evidence  that  both  Japanese  and  ussuriensis  rootstocks  cause  the  physio- 
logical disease  known  as  "  black-end ' '  of  pears.  (For  a  discussion  of  li  black- 
end"  see  Heppner,  M.  J.,  in  the  Proceedings  of  the  American  Society  for  Horti- 
cultural Science,  24,  1927  [in  press].)  It  is  estimated  that  about  three-fourths 
of  the  pear  trees  planted  in  the  state  during  the  last  decade  have  been  on  Japanese 
rootstock.  (Based  on  data  compiled  by  Mr.  J.  E.  Bergholdt  of  nursery  stock  in 
dormant  bud  in  California  nurseries  in  June  annually,  1917-1925.) 

There  is  a  serious  question  in  the  minds  of  some  familiar  with  the  pear  industry 
of  the  state  whether  pears  produced  in  some  sections  of  the  state  on  Ussuriensis 
rootstock  may  not,  when  they  come  into  bearing,  prove  inferior  in  quality,  as  has 
already  been  the  case  in  a  number  of  instances. 

20  See  figures  6,  7,  and  8  and  discussion  on  pages  31-34. 

2i  The  problems  of  pear  pollination  in  California  and  the  effect  of  cross- 
pollination  upon  maturity,  shape,  production,  and  keeping  period  are  discussed  in 
Tufts,  W.  P.,  and  G.  L.  Philp.  Pear  pollination.  California  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui. 
373:  1-36.     1925. 


BUL.  452]  ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF  THE  PEAR  INDUSTRY  29 

Influence  of  Pear  Blight  on  the'  Industry. — The  ravages  of  pear 
blight  are  generally  known  to  have  been  the  chief  obstacle  to  the  exten- 
sive development  of  the  pear  industry  in  the  east.  On  the  Pacific 
Coast,  the  blight  in  recent  years  has  proved  to  be  more  serious  in  the 
chief  pear-producing  sections  of  Oregon  and  Washington  than  in  those 
of  California.22  However,  a  narrow  belt  along  the  Pacific  Coast,  in- 
cluding the  coastal  valleys  of  Washington  and  Oregon  as  well  as  of 
northern  and  central  California,  has  remained  remarkably  free  from 
the  blight.  It  is  significant  that  a  large  proportion  of  the  young  pear 
acreage  in  California  is  in  these  coastal  districts. 

Until  about  a  decade  ago  the  pear  blight  had  proved  so  destructive 
in  some  sections  of  California  that  it  was  considered  the  most  serious 
factor  limiting  the  expansion  of  the  industry  in  the  state.  About  1900 
it  practically  wiped  out  the  pear  industry  in  the  San  Joaquin  Valley 
and  in  the  decade  following  1903  the  disease  proved  very  destructive 
in  the  Sacramento  Valley. 

The  commercial  pear  industry  has  been  eliminated  from  the  San 
Joaquin  Valley  where  the  disease  was  most  virulent,  and  growers  in 
the  Sacramento  Valley  generally  realize  the  serious  necessity  for 
constant  vigilance  against  the  disease.  Methods  of  prevention  and 
control  have  also  been  greatly  improved.  Largely  as  a  result  of  these 
facts,  relatively  few  pear  trees  have  been  lost  in  California  from  blight 
in  recent  years.  In  1925  Swett  states  that  ''We  do  not  know  of  any 
season  in  recent  years,  even  the  worst,  when  blight  has  ruined  more 
than  70,000  trees  or  700  acres."23  Judging  from  his  estimates,  an 
average  of  not  over  one-half  of  one  per  cent  of  the  pear  acreage  in 
the  state  has  been  destroyed  in  recent  years.  It  seems  reasonable  to 
expect,  therefore,  that  the  inroads  of  pear  blight  may  not  prove  more 
serious  in  the  next  few  years  than  they  have  during  the  last  decade. 


CALIFORNIA    PEAR-PRODUCING    DISTRICTS 

Location  of  California  Pear-Producing  Districts. — The  location  of 
the  chief  pear-producing  sections  of  California  can  be  seen  by  refer- 
ence to  the  map  in  figure  5,  showing  the  total  of  bearing  and  non- 
bearing  pear  acreage  in  California  by  counties  in  1927.    The  industry 


22  Anonymous.  Blight  and  the  law.  California  Pear  Grower  2  (11) :  11.  1922. 
For  a  brief  discussion  of  the  history  and  the  extent  of  pear  blight  in  the  United 
States,  particularly  on  the  Pacific  Coast,  see  Reimer,  F.  C.  Blight  resistance  in 
pears  and  characteristics  of  pear  species  in  stocks.  Oregon  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui. 
214:  7.     1925. 

2  3  Swett,  F.  T.  Annual  report  to  the  California  Pear  Growers'  Association. 
California  Pear  Grower  5  (1):  8.     1925. 


30 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


C<2//Yorn/<3   P&cir 

Tat<o/   o-f  B&art'ng    and 


Acreage,    1927 


~«)    A^r&t 


Cenf-r-ai 


Jor+h    o-f 


Sovi-h  erf 


Soui-h&rn 
D/si-f-/a-f- 


//r?per/a/  \Zo//ey 


Fig.  5. — California  pear  acreage  is  largely  concentrated  in  four  important 
areas.  It  centers  in  (1)  the  Sacramento  Valley  district,  merging  into  (2)  the 
coast  district,  which  stretches  from  Mendocino  County  on  the  north  to  San  Luis 
Obispo  on  the  south.  (3)  The  mountain  district  of  the  Sierras  embraces  Placer, 
Eldorado,  and  Nevada  counties  chiefly,  while  (4)  southern  California  includes  the 
area  south  of  the  Tehachapi  range. 


(Note. — The  dotted  lines  indicate  the  boundaries  of  the  shipping  districts  used  by  the 
Market  News  Service  of  the  United  States  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics.  The  line 
separating  the  central  and  southern  districts  divides  the  state  approximately  into  north  and 
south  of  Tehachapi  (a  rugged  mountain  barrier  separating  the  northern  and  southern  part 
of  the  state  except  along  the  coast.)      (Data  from  table  34,  p.   105.) 


BUL.  452]  ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF  THE  PEAR  INDUSTRY  31 

may  be  said  to  center  in  the  lower  part  of  the  Sacramento  Valley, 
which  section  includes  Sacramento,  Solano,  and  Yolo  counties  chiefly, 
and  most,  if  not  all,  of  the  pear  acreage  of  San  Joaquin  and  Contra 
Costa  counties  as  well.  Along  the  lower  reaches  of  the  Sacramento 
River  the  pear  acreage  is  almost  continuous  for  about  35  miles.24  The 
Sacramento  Valley  pear  district  is  second  in  pear  acreage  to  the 
coast  district.  The  coast  district,  geographically,  is  divided  into  two 
sections,  the  one  north  of  the  San  Francisco  Bay  embracing  Lake, 
Mendocino,  Sonoma,  and  Napa  counties  primarily;  the  other,  some- 
what more  important  judged  by  its  acreage,  embracing  Santa  Clara, 
Alameda,  San  Benito,  Santa  Cruz,  Monterey,  and  San  Luis  Obispo 
counties  chiefly.  Southern  California  is  third  in  acreage  among  the 
pear-producing  sections  of  the  state.  The  bulk  of  the  acreage  in  this 
section  is  in  Antelope  Valley  in  Los  Angeles  County.  Most  of  the 
remainder  is  in  Riverside  and  San  Bernardino  counties  and  in  Kern 
County  in  the  vicinity  of  Tehachapi.  The  mountain  district,  which 
contains  almost  as  large  a  pear  acreage  as  southern  California,  largely 
embraces  Eldorado,  Placer,  and  Nevada  counties. 

Relative  Importance  of  Chief  Districts. — Figure  6  shows  the  rela- 
tive importance  of  the  five  chief  pear-producing  sections  of  the  state 
on  the  basis  of  acreage,  and  figure  7  indicates  the  increase  in  bearing 
acreage  which  has  taken  place  in  each  since  1921.  The  coast  district, 
the  largest,  contains  a  total  of  35,000  acres,  over  20,000  of  which,  or 
practically  58  per  cent,  are  in  bearing.  About  11,000  acres  of  these 
have  come  into  bearing  since  1921  (fig.  7).  Nearly  15,000  acres,  or 
about  42  per  cent  of  the  present  acreage,  are  not  yet  in  bearing.  The 
large  proportion  of  non-bearing  trees  in  this  district  indicates  the 
most  rapid  rate  of  increase  in  bearing  acreage  and  production  in  the 
next  decade  of  any  section  in  the  state.  In  actual  tonnage  this  increase 
should  likewise  be  very  large,  since  about  35  per  cent  of  the  total  pear 
acreage  of  the  state  is  in  this  district  and  over  48  per  cent  of  the  non- 
bearing  acreage.  In  addition,  the  excellent  adaptability  of  much  of 
this  area  to  pear  production  and  the  freedom  from  serious  attacks  of 
blight  makes  the  yields  per  acre  normally  heavier  than  the  average 
for  the  state. 

Reference  to  table  34  shows  that  the  largest  part  of  the  non-bearing 
acreage  of  pears  in  the  coast  district  is  north  of  San  Francisco  Bay, 
chiefly  in  the  three  counties  of  Lake,  Mendocino,  and  Napa.  Nearly 
10,000  acres,  or  about  54  per  cent,  of  the  pear  trees  in  this  section 
north  of  the  Bay  were  still  hot  in  bearing  in  1927.    On  the  other  hand, 


24  Tufts,  W.   P.     Growing  Bartletts   in   California.      Oregon    Grower   4:219. 
1923. 


32  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

of  nearly  17,000  acres  in  the  coast  district  south  of  the  Bay  in  1927, 
only  about  30  per  cent  were  still  non-bearing.  Santa  Clara  County, 
which  ranks  third  in  pear  acreage  in  the  state  and  second  to  Lake 
County  in  the  Coast  district,  has  an  acreage  of  nearly  7,100,  only 
25  per  cent  of  which  is  non-bearing.  In  striking  contrast  to  the 
relatively  small  proportional  increase  which  can  be  expected  from 
the  coast  counties  south  of  the  Bay  is  the  large  expansion  in  bearing 
acreage  and  production  which  will  occur  north  of  the  Bay.  About 
48  per  cent  of  the  7,700  acres  of  pears  in  Lake  County,  about  62  per 
cent  of  the  4,200  acres  in  Mendocino  County,  and  over  60  per  cent 
of  the  3,800  acres  in  Napa  County,  were  not  of  bearing  age  in  1927. 

Both  Bartletts  and  late  varieties  of  pears  are  grown  in  the  coast 
district,  Bartletts  being  most  important  north  of  the  Bay  and  in 
Contra  Costa  and  Santa  Clara  counties.  Bartletts  from  south  of  the 
Bay  are  used  chiefly  for  canning  purposes.25  The  acreage  of  fall  and 
winter  varieties  of  pears  in  the  Coast  district  south  of  the  Bay  is  the 
most  extensive  in  the  state. 

Sacramento  Valley  ranks  second  in  acreage  and  production  among 
the  pear-growing  districts  of  California  and  generally  produces  high 
yields  per  acre.  About  28,500  acres,  or  approximately  32  per  cent 
of  the  pear  acreage  of  the  state  in  1927,  were  in  this  distirct.  Of 
these,  nearly  20,000  acres  or  71  per  cent,  were  in  bearing  and  over 
8,000,  or  29  per  cent,  were  not  in  bearing.  The  bearing  acreage  in- 
creased by  7,000  acres  since  1921.  The  pear  industry  has  been  devel- 
oped for  a  longer  period  in  the  Sacramento  Valley  than  in  the  coast 
district,  and  hence  a  larger  proportion  of  the  good  pear  lands  have 
been  planted  to  pears,  and  a  relatively  smaller  acreage  is  available  for 
the  expansion  of  the  industry.  The  pears  produced  in  the  Sacramento 
Valley  are  shipped  to  eastern  markets  in  large  quantities,  and  a  large 
tonnage  is  canned.  : .  ...  ;_   . 

Figure  8  shows  that  Sacramento  County,  containing  10,000  :acres 
of  pears,  leads  the  state  in  both  total  and  bearing  acreage.  The  total 
acreage  is  so  much  greater  than  that  in  any  other  county  and  the 
average  yield  per  acre  so  large,  that  it  seems  likely  that  Sacramento 
will  continue  to  be  the  largest-producing  county  in  the  state,  for  a 
good  many  years  to  come,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  the  non-bearing 
acreage  is  such  a  small  proportion  (30  per  cent)  of  the  total.  Solano, 
second  in  acreage  among  the  counties  included  in  the  Sacramento 
Valley,  ranks  eighth  among  all  the  counties  in  the  state.  It  contains 
slightly  over  4,000  acres  of  pears,  less  than  15  per  cent  of  which  are 
not  of  bearing  age. 

25  Tufts,  W.  P.  Growing  Bartletts  in  California.  Oregon  Grower  4  :  219. 
1923. 


Bul.  452 


ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF   THE  PEAR  INDUSTRY 


33 


Ca//forn/a    Bearing  and  /Von-  bear/ t?g     Pear  Acreage 
&y  P/str/cfo,  /927. 


Coast 
P/sfr/ct 


Sacramento 
Va//ey 


Southern 
Ca/tforn/a 


Mounta/n 
Pritr/ct 


Other 
Coant/es 


.e^^^^^m^m 


Thousands  of  Acres 
3  /Z  /6 


Toto/ 
■fli    Bear/ng  58./ 

V7777\   tton-beonnc,        30.9 


89.0 


Fig.  6. — The  coast  district  and  the  Sacramento  Valley  together  contain  nearly 
70  per  cent  of  the  bearing  pear  acreage  in  California  and  about  75  per  cent  of 
the  non-bearing  acreage.  The  most  rapid  increase  in  production  is  occurring  in 
the  coast  section  north  of  San  Francisco  Bay,  in  which  over  65  per  cent  of  the 
pear  acreage  was  not  yet  in  bearing  in  1927. 

(Data  from  table  34,  page  105.) 


Increase  jh  Ca/ffarn/a     Bearing  F&ar  Acreagre  &y  P/str/cts,  t92/ to  t9ZY. 


JOOOS  of  Acres 
In- 


/S2/ 


.9,320.4 
/2.8/9S 


4.8 
4.0 
O.B 


3/. 7 


Be? 


S.3 
8.3 
/.4 


59.2 


Thousands  t>r  Acres 


//./  Coast  P/str/cf 
7.0  Socromen/o  fo//ey 
3.5  /*7ow7to/r7  P/sfr/cf 
4.3  Sou fh  err?  Co//forr?/o 
0.6  Other  Counf/es 


26.5  Tb/o/ 


Fig.  7. — From  1921  to  1927  the  bearing  acreage  of  pears  in  California  in- 
creased almost  85  per  cent.  The  largest  increase  occurred  in  the  coast  district, 
in  which  the  bearing  acreage  more  than  doubled.  There  has  also  been  a  large 
increase  in  the  Sacramento  Valley. 


(Data  from  table  34,  page  105.) 


34  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

The  pear  acreage  of  southern  California,  which  holds  third  place 
among  the  pear-producing  sections  of  the  state,  amounted  to  11,600 
acres  in  1927,  or  nearly  13  per  cent  of  the  state  total.  Of  this,  3,300 
acres,  or  29  per  cent,  were  still  too  young  to  bear.  The  bearing  acreage 
increased  approximately  4,300  acres  since  1921.  The  greater  part 
of  the  pear  acreage  of  this  district  is  in  Los  Angeles  County,  which 
ranks  fourth  among  the  counties  of  the  state.  Of  a  total  of  5,900  acres 
in  this  county,  one-fourth  is  still  to  come  in  bearing.  Pears  in  the 
southern  part  of  the  state  are  produced  primarily  for  the  fresh-fruit 
market,  a  large  proportion  being  consumed  in  the  larger  population 
centers  of  southern  California  itself. 

The  three  counties  Placer,  Eldorado,  and  Nevada  contain  most  of 
the  pear  acreage  of  the  mountain  district  of  California,  which  is 
fourth  among  the  pear-producing  sections  of  the  state.  Approxi- 
mately 11,300  acres,  or  13  per  cent  of  the  acreage  of  the  state,  were 
embraced  by  this  district  in  1927.  Of  this  acreage  about  26  per  cent 
is  not  yet  in  bearing.  The  bearing  acreage  increased  about  3,500  acres 
since  1921.  Most  of  the  non-bearing  acreage  in  this  section  is  in 
Placer  and  Eldorado  counties. 

The  yield  per  acre  of  pears  in  this  section  is  below  the  average  for 
the  state.  The  eating  quality  of  the  pears,  however,  is  generally 
conceded  to  be  excellent.  As  a  result  practically  all  are  shipped  to 
eastern  markets.  A  considerable  acreage  of  fall  and  winter  varieties 
of  pears  has  been  planted  in  this  district  in  recent  years,  partly 
because  these  varieties  have  usually  brought  a  better  price20  than  the 
earlier  Bartletts,  and  also  because  several  of  them  are  relatively  more 
resistant  to  blight  than  the  Bartletts.  In  addition,  a  number  Of  .the 
better  varieties  of  late  pears  have  been  shown  to  improve  the  yield  of 
Bartletts  appreciably  when  used  as  cross-pollinizers.27 

The  four  important  pear-growing  sections  of  the  state  which  have 
been  discussed  contain  over  97  per  cent  of  the  total  pear  acreage  of 
the  state,  leaving  less  than  3  per  cent  of  the  acreage  in  the  San  Joaquin 
Valley.  At  one  time  several  counties  in  the  San  Joaquin  Valley 
proper,  particularly  Kings  and  Fresno  counties,  were  large  producers 
of  pears.  About  twenty-five  years  ago,  however,  the  industry  in  this 
part  of  the  state  was  almost  completely  wiped  out .  by  the  blight,  and 
production  on  a  commercial  scale  has  never  been  resumed  in  most 
of  this  area. 


26  See  discussion,  pages  40-42.  , 

27  Tufts,  W.  P.,  and  G.  L.  Philp.     Pear  pollination.     California  Agr.  Exp.  Sta. 
Bui.  373:  1-36.     1925. 


Bul.  4">2] 


ECONOMIC   ASPECTS  OF   THE   PEAR   INDUSTRY 


35 


California  Bearing  -t  A/on  -  bearing  Pear  Acreage   by  Chief  Coun-ffes, 

9Z7 

/OOCXs  Acr-tsa 

Thousands    of    Acres 
7                    Z                    4                   0                    &                   IO 

Sean- 
7.0 
4.0 
5.3 
4.4 
3.7 
3.4 
1.6 
35 

1.5 

2.6 
1.7 
f.<5 
13 
I.O 
l.Z 
IZ 
1.0 
1.3 
1.4 
l.Z 
0.7 
0.6 
09 

l.Z 

0.6 

4.Z 

S8.I 

Non- 
b'inff 

3.0 
3.7 
1.8 
1.5 
1.5 
1.3 
Z.6 
Q.6 
Z.3 
I.I 
l.Z. 
13 
J4 
l.Z 
0:9 
0.7 
0,6 
03 
O.O 
O.Z 
07 

o.e 

04 

ao 

0.3 

1.5 
30S 

-foiaf 
10.0 
77 
7.1 
5.9 
5.Z 

4:7 

4.Z 

4.1 

3.8 

3.7 

Z.9 
Z.9 
Z.7 
Z.Z. 

Z.I 
1.9 

/.e 

1.6 
i.4 
1.4 
1.4 
1.4 
1.3 
IZ 
09 
5.7 
69.0 

IZ. 

/ 
2 
3 
4 
5 
<o 
7 
8 
9 
JO 

// 

fZ 

13 
14 

15 
1(3 
17 
18 
19 

zo 

Zl 

zz 

Z3 
Z4 
Z5 

Sac  '-*o 

Lake 

3.  Clara 

L.  Angelas 

Placer 

C  Cos-fa. 

Mendocino 

Solano 

Napa 

Eldorado 

Sonoma 

Yolo 

5.  Uoagu/'n 

Monterey 

Riverside 

3  Benifo 

3  Berdino 

3  L.Obispo 

Nevada 

Alameda 

5.  Cruz 

Tulare 

Yuba 

Ker-n 

Surfer 

Of hers 

Toi-al 

"ing 

bearing 
Von  -  beat 

fmmpm^m>>/tyMf,v.t 

^^mm^^ammm         \ 

■■■   • 
EM     I 

■"^»~n 

wmmmm^^ar~i 

mmmmmr»//A 

1         i^^^ 

a 

W^m^///,yy,,, 

^mmmam 

fmm>}w,&//,\ 

■■H       1 

TKKl/'T'/A 

wmmbwA 

■kzz: 

Hi 

^^K/7'A 

MP"! 

m    i 

■■■^    -  -^L'/y/'/A 

Fig.  8. — Half  of  the  counties  in  California  contain  over  95  per  cent  of  the 
pear  acreage,  and  the  first  ten  about  63  per  cent. 

(Data  from  table  34,  page  105.) 


36  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


PRICES   AND    PURCHASING    POWER    OF    FRESH    PEARS 

Purchasing  Power  of  California  Bariletts,  1909-1927. 2B — Although 
the  prices  and  purchasing  power  of  California  shipments  of  fresh 
Bartlett  pears  as  shown  in  figure  9  and  table  6  are  estimated  f.o.b. 
figures,  they  may  fairly  be  used  to  picture  the  trend  of  average 
returns  to  California  growers  in  the  last  seventeen  years.  The  curve 
of  purchasing  power  shows  no  apparent  tendency  either  to  rise  or  to 
fall  since  1909.  Comparison  of  the  curve  of  purchasing  power  with 
the  general  upward  trend  of  pear  prices  from  1915  to  1920  indicates 
that  on  the  average  the  eastern  price  of  California  pears  was  rising 
no  faster  than  the  general  level  of  the  prices  of  all  commodities. 

The  relatively  great  increase  in  the  per-capita  consumption  of 
fresh  pears  in  eastern  centers  of  population  in  recent  years  has 
apparently  been  accompanied  by  a  sufficient  stimulation  of  demand 
to  offset  the  normal  tendency  for  purchasing  power  to  fall  as  supplies 
of  pears  and  competing  fresh  fruits  increased.  It  seems  probable, 
however,  that  the  rapid  increase  in  commercial  production  of  pears 
which  is  taking  place  in  the  United  States,  particularly  on  the  Pacific 
Coast,  will  result  in  declining  purchasing  power  for  average  crops 
during  the  next  few  years.  This  tendency  to  decline  is  indicated  by 
the  curve  showing  the  purchasing  power  of  California  canning  Bart- 
letts  (fig.  27,  p.  89).  The  annual  purchasing  power  per  ton  of 
California's  crop  from  1918  to  date,  based  on  the  California  Crop 

28  Meaning  of  Purchasing  Power. — The  fluctuations  in  prices  shown  in  the 
upper  line  in  figure  9  represent  price  changes  that  have  been  due  to  two  sets  of 
causes:  one,  the  changing  value  of  the  dollar;  the  other,  changes  in  the  relations 
of  the  supply  of,  and  the  demand  for,  California  fresh  Bartletts  in  eastern 
markets.  It  has  not  been  possible  in  any  year  since  1914  for  Americans  to 
purchase  as  many  units  of  goods  in  general  for  a  dollar  as  they  could  during  the 
period  from  1910  to  1914.  The  supply  of  money  and  credit  from  1914  to  1920 
increased  faster  than  the  trade  demands  for  it  and,  chiefly  as  a  result  of  this 
fact,  the  value  of  money,  or  its  purchasing  power,  fell.  As  a  result  of  this 
decline  in  the  value  of  money,  at  least  two  dollars  were  necessary  in  1918,  1919, 
and  1920  to  buy  goods  in  general  which  could  have  been  bought  for  one  dollar 
in  1914.  This  being  the  case,  the  dollars  which  pear  growers  received  in  these 
years  were  worth  in  general  purchasing  power  less  than  half  as  much  as  those 
which  they  received  and  spent  before  1914. 

In  order  to  approximate  the  f.o.b.  price  per  ton  for  eastern  Bartlett  sales  in 
terms  of  general  purchasing  power,  changes  in  the  value  of  the  dollar  have  been 
eliminated  by  the  method  generally  used  by  economists  and  statisticians.  The 
upper  solid  line  in  figure  9  shows  the  actual  prices  received.  The  lower  line 
shows  these  same  prices  after  they  have  been  converted  to  purchasing  power, 
that  is,  deflated,  or  expressed  in  terms  of  dollars  of  the  average  value  or  pur- 
chasing power  during  the  period  1910-1914.  The  fluctuations  pictured  in  this 
curve  of  purchasing  power  per  ton  represent,  therefore,  price  changes  resulting 
primarily  from  changes  in  the  supply  of,  or  the  demand  for,  California  fresh 
Bartletts  in  eastern  markets;  or  from  coincident  changes  in  both. 


Bul.  452] 


ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF  THE   PEAR  INDUSTRY 


37 


Reporting  Service  estimates  of  the  average  farm  prices,  also  shows 
a  slight  downward  movement  (fig.  10,  and  table  7).29 

With  increasing  production  tending  to  lower  prices,  it  behooves 
growers  who  produce  an  excellent  quality  of  pears  to  make  sure  that 
in  the  future  they  secure  the  premium  over  poorer  quality  pears  that 
their  fruit  deserves.  The  importance  of  this  matter  is  emphasized 
by  the  large  proportion  of  the  trees  coming  into  bearing  which  are 
on  Ussuriensis  and  Japanese  root  stocks,  which  trees  are  said  to  pro- 
duce pears  inferior  in  quality  compared  with  those  produced  on 
French  stock.30 


ie>o 

'-imc 

Po 
rt&a 

'  Po 

b  £ 

g  P 

owe 
vng 

r  o 
Po/r 

^  C 

it  6 

alif 
asec 

ornj 
i  on 

'a  8 

art 
iter 

te-tt 

n  Di 

A? 

ars, 

!90. 
Auc 

?  to 
fibn 

I9z; 

7 

J 
/<dO 

/20 

Pri 

~e\ 

/eo 

I 

K  eo 

I 
1 

X 

BO 
40 

I' 

N 

»^"- 

^** 

^««* 

\ 

"X 

/ 

\ 

»— m 

* 

* 

Pu 

-<=ha 

sing 

Pb*. 

J 

1909    /O        II         IZ        13       14-      1915      l&        17        18        19      I9ZO   Zl       ZZ      Z3      24    /9Z5~    Z0      Z7      Z8 

Fig.  9. — Although  there  has  been  no  apparent  tendency  for  the  trend  of  pur- 
chasing power  per  ton  of  California  Bartletts  in  eastern  markets  either  to  rise  or 
to  fall  in  the  last  fifteen  years,  it  seems  probable  that  it  will  decline  appreciably 
with  increasing  production  in  the  next  few  years. 

(Data  from  table  6.) 


Since  1919  there  has  been  a  tendency  for  the  purchasing  power 
per  ton  of  California  Bartlett  pears  to  fall  in  years  when  interstate 
shipments  from  north  of  Tehachapi  increased  and  to  rise  when  such 
shipments  declined.  The  bulk  of  California  Bartletts  are  shipped 
in  July  and  August.  Probably  because  of  this  fact  there  seems  to  be 
a  slightly  closer  inverse  relation  between  the  purchasing  power  of 
California  Bartlett  pears  and  interstate  pear  shipments  for  the  two 
months  of  July  and  August  than  between  purchasing  power  and  inter- 
state shipments  for  the  whole  season.    When  July  and  August  ship- 

29  The  prices  and  purchasing  power  of  pears  are  discussed  elsewhere  in  this 
bulletin  as  follows:  monthly  export  prices  of  fresh  pears,  page  62;  relation  of 
weekly  supply  to  price,  page  75;  canning-pear  prices  and  purchasing  power,  page 
89;  and  dried-pear  prices  and  purchasing  power,  page  99. 

so  See  footnote  19,  page  28. 


38 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


TABLE  6 

Price  and  Purchasing  Power  of  California  Bartlett  Pears,  1909-1927 
(Eastern  Delivered-Auction  and  Estimated  F.O.B.  Shipping  Point) 


Gross 

auction 

price 

per 

box 

Estimated  f.  o.  b.  shipping  points 

All-com- 
modity 
wholesale 
price 
index 

Freight  and  refrigeration 
charges  per  box 

Year 

Price 

Purchasing  power 

Freight 

Refrig- 
eration 

Per 

box 

Per 

net  ton 

Per  cent 

of  1910-14 

average 

Per 

net  ton 

Per  cent 

of  1910-14 

average 

Total 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

Average 

1910-1914 

$2.17 

$1.25 

$54-50 

100 

$54.50 

100 

100 

$0.60 

$0.17 

$0.77 

1909 

2  45 

1.38 

60  00 

110 

60.60 

112 

99 

0.73 

0.17 

0  90 

1910 

2.40 

1.36 

59.20 

109 

57.50 

106 

103 

0.70 

0.17 

0.87 

1911 

1  75 

.90 

39.20 

72 

41.30 

76 

95 

0.57 

0.16 

0.73 

1912 

2  20 

1  30 

56.60 

104 

56.00 

103 

101 

0.57 

0.17 

0  74 

1913 

2.50 

1.58 

68.70 

126 

67.40 

125 

102 

0.57 

0  17 

0.74 

1914 

2.00 

1.12 

48.70 

90 

48.70 

90 

100 

0.57 

0.17 

0.74 

1915 

1.75 

.88 

38.30 

70 

37.20 

69 

103 

0.57 

0  17 

0.74 

1916 

2.65 

1.72 

74.80 

138 

58.00 

107 

129 

0  57 

0  17 

0.74 

1917 

2.80 

1.86 

80.90 

149 

45.00 

83 

180 

0.57 

0  17 

0.74 

1918 

3.40 

2.25 

97.90 

180 

49.40 

91 

198 

0  74 

0  17 

0.91 

1919 

3.85 

2.22 

96.60 

178 

46.00 

85 

210 

0  74 

0.17 

0.91 

1920 

4  35 

2  85 

124  00 

228 

53.90 

100 

230 

0.99 

0  21 

1.20 

1921 

3.50 

2.06 

89.60 

165 

59.70 

110 

150 

0.99 

0  21 

1.20 

1922 

2.75 

1.49 

64.80 

119 

42.60 

79 

152 

0  87 

0  20 

1.07 

1923 

3.00 

1.72 

74.80 

138 

48.00 

89 

156 

0.87 

0  20 

1.07 

1924 

3.85 

2.51 

109.20 

201 

71  80 

133 

152 

0  87 

0  20 

1.07 

1925 

2  75 

1.49 

64.80 

119 

40.00 

74 

152 

0.87 

0  20 

1  07 

1926 

2.65 

1.40 

60.90 

112 

39.50 

73 

154 

0  87 

0  20 

1  07 

1927 

3  32 

2.02 

8*7.90 

161 

59.00 

109 

149 

0.87 

0  20 

1.07 

1928 

Source  of  data : 

Col.  2.— Years  1909-1912,  and  1914-1916  are  weighted  averages  for  July  and  August  computed  from 
daily  range  of  sales  prices  of  Bartletts  on  New  York  City  delivered-auction  market  as  quoted  in  California 
Fruit  News.  The  simple  averages  of  daily  ranges  were  averaged  by  weeks  and  weekly  averages  weighted 
by  interstate  shipments  of  pears  from  North  of  Tehachapi  for  the  week  ending  two  weeks  prior  to  that 
of  the  sales.  Year  1913  is  weighted  average  price  for  Bartletts  from  the  Sacramento  River  district  only. 
Years  1917  and  1918  are  weighted  averages  of  New  York  delivered-auction  prices  during  the  bulk  of  each 
season.  Years  1919-1926  are  weighted-average  prices  of  California  Bartletts  on  the  chief  eastern  delivered- 
auction  markets. 

Col.  3. — Computed  by  subtracting  the  total  of  freight  and  refrigeration  in  col.  11  and  a  sales  commis- 
sion of  7  per  cent  from  the  gross  auction  price  in  col.  2. 

Col.  4— Computed  by  multiplying  the  price  per  box  in  col.  3  by  43.5  (the  approximate  number  of 
packed  boxes  of  a  net  weight  of  46  lbs.  in  a  ton). 

Col.  6. — Items  in  col.  4  divided  by  items  for  corresponding  year  as  given  in  col.  8  and  multiplied 
by  100. 

Col.  8.— U.  S.  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics  all-commodity  wholesale-price  index  for  the  United  States 
for  calendar  years  converted  to  a  1910-1914  base  of  100.  Data  from  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Bur.  Agr.  Econ. 
Agricultural  Situation  12  (4). '6.    April,  1928. 

Col.  9.— Freight  rate  by  rail  to  nearest  whole  cent  per  box  of  an  estimated  weight  of  50  lbs.  gross, 
based  on  the  rate  per  100  lbs.  from  California  to  New  York  City  as  compiled  from  freight  tariffs.  The 
rates  for  the  years  1918-1921  inclusive  includes  the  3-per-cent  war  tax. 

Col.  10.— Refrigeration  rate  by  rail  in  nearest  whole  cent  per  box  of  an  estimated  weight  of  50  lbs. 
gross,  based  on  the  rate  per  car  from  California  to  New  York  City  as  compiled  from  refrigeration  tariffs. 
Prior  to  1912  there  were  different  refrigeration  rates  for  different  sections  of  California.  The  rates  used  in 
this  table  for  these  years  are,  however,  believed  to  be  representative  of  the  chief  pear-shipping  districts 
at  the  time.    The  rates  for  the  years  1918-1921  inclusive  include  the  3-per-cent  war  tax. 


Bul.452" 


ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF   THE  PEAR  INDUSTRY 


39 


merits  of  Oregon  and  Washington  pears,  together  with  those  of  Cali- 
fornia, are  taken  into  consideration  this  same  tendency  to  inverse 
relationship  between  shipments  and  the  purchasing  power  per  ton  of 
California  Bartlett  pears  is  evident.  However,  as  will  be  seen  from 
the  discussion  on  the  relation  of  seasonal  variations  in  supply  to 
prices,  the  closest  relation  between  purchasing  power  and  market 
supplies  is  found  when  weekly  data  are  analyzed.31 


Gross  Income  of  Co///orn/o  Pears  P&r  £?ear/r?a  Acre 
one/  Purc/?as/ng  Power  Per  Ton,  ASMB-AS&7 


soo 





400 



— 

ZjT_ 

300 

k 

\ 

Cross  /ncorve  per  Acre,  Act 

200 

-       ^~ 

- 

S' 

\ 

- 

>*-»_ 

_-.**» 

Nk 

S* 

<^mm. 

- 

/OO 
X>  SO 

k 

^60 

40 
30 

20 
/O 

0 

- 

*»"^ 

^ 

*' 

\ 

+* 

- 

^  Fi/rcAasin?  Fbwer  per  Acre 

\ 

**'' 

- 

- 

- 

* 

K 

- 

^ 

""' 

T 

vrcrjos/i 

7£7  PcHYt 

0 

•r  per  7 

3/7 

s 

/ 

• 

/ 

- 

- 

SOO 

400 

JOO 

200 


/OO 
GO 

CO 

40 
30 

20 
/O 


/9/S       /& 


20        2/ 


22       23 


24 


25 


26        27 


/928 


Fig.  10. — The  farm  purchasing  power  per  ton  of  California  pears  has  declined 
but  slightly  in  the  last  decade,  while  the  gross  income  per  bearing  acre  has  declined 
appreciably,  chiefly  because  of  low  yields  per  acre  resulting  largely  from  the 
increase  in  the  proportion  of  young  bearing  trees. 

(Data  from  table  7.) 


Gross  Income  per  Acre. — Gross  returns  per  bearing  acre  of  pears 
are  shown  in  figure  10  to  have  declined  in  California  since  1918. 
This  decline  is  partly  because  the  farm  value  per  ton  has  declined 
slightly,  but  more  largely  because  the  yield  of  pears  per  bearing  acre 
has  not  been  so  great  since  1920  as  previously.  This  apparent 
reduction  in  average  yield  per  bearing  acre  in  recent  years  is  prob- 
ably chiefly  the  result  of  a  decrease  in  the  proportion  of  the  bearing 

3i  See  discussion,  pages  75-81. 


40 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


trees  of  maximum  bearing  age,  due  to  the  relatively  large  increase 
in  young  bearing  trees. 

TABLE  7 

Farm  Price  and  Purchasing  Power  of  California  Pears  per  Ton  and  per 

Bearing  Acre,  1918-1927 


Price 
per  ton, 
dollars 

Purchasing  power 
per  ton 

Gross  income 
per  bearing  acre 

Year 

Dollars 

Per  cent 
of  1919 

Price, 
dollars 

Purchasing  power 

All-commodity 
wholesale 

Dollars 

Per  cent 
of  1919 

i 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

1918 

56  00 

28.30 

83 

264 

133 

78 

198 

1919 

72.00 

34.30 

100 

360 

171 

100 

210 

1920 

90.00 

39.10 

114 

313 

136 

79 

230 

1921 

62.50 

41.30 

121 

169 

113 

66 

150 

1922 

50.00 

32.90 

96 

194 

128 

75 

152 

1923 

50.00 

32.00 

94 

159 

102 

60 

156 

1924 

66.00 

43.40 

127 

198 

130 

76 

152 

1925 

52.00 

32.10 

94 

195 

120 

70 

162 

1926 

35.00 

22.70 

66 

135 

88 

51 

154 

1927* 

54  00 

36.20 

105 

164 

110 

64 

149 

1928 

*  Data  for  1927  are  preliminary  and  subject  to  revision. 

Sources  of  data: 

Col.  1. — Farm  value  per  ton  of  California  pear  crop  as  estimated  by  the  California  Crop  Reporting 
Service.  Year  1918  from  California  Fruit  News,  Dec.  27,  1919,  p.  16-B;  years  1919-1925  from  California 
Crop  Report  for  1925.  California  Dept.  Agr.  Spec.  Pub.  63:  26,  1926;  years  1926  and  1927  from  Cali- 
fornia Cooperative  Crop  Reporting  Service.  Summary  of  California  Annual  Crop  Report,  1927  p. 
3.  (mimeo.).  Jan.  4,  1928. 

Cols.  2  and  5.— Items  in  cols.  1  and  4  respectively,  divided  by  wholesale  price  index  in  col.  7  for  cor- 
responding year  and  multiplied  by  100. 

Col.  4.— Estimated  gross  farm  income  from  the  California  pear  crop  divided  by  estimated  bearing 
acreage.   Farm  price  from  col.  1,  production  and  acreage  from  table  5,  page  27. 

Col.  7.— U.  S.  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics  all-commodity  wholesale-price  index  for  the  United  States 
for  calendar  years,  converted  to  a  1910-1914  base  of  100.  Data  from  U.  S.  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.,  Agricultural 
Situation  12  (4):  6..   April,  1928. 

Comparison  of  Prices  of  Bartletts  and  Late  Varieties. — The  New 
York  delivered-auction  prices32  of  all  the  varieties  of  Pacific  Coast 
pears  pictured  in  figure  11  have  tended  to  move  up  or  down  together 
rather  consistently  during  the  last  ten  years.  Both  Oregon  and  Cali- 
fornia Bartlett  pears,  however,  have,  on  the  average,  sold  at  a  lower 

32  The  annual  average  prices  of  late  varieties  of  pears  originating  in  Oregon 
are  used  in  this  discussion  because  no  such  series  for  these  varieties  of  California 
pears  were  readily  available.  Likewise  these  averages  are  believed  to  be  approxi- 
mately representative  of  what  California  pears  of  the  same  variety  and  quality 
sold  for,  or  would  have  sold  for,  on  the  New  York  auctions,  since  the  marketing 
season  for  late  varieties  of  California  pears  is  usually  but  slightly  earlier  than 
that  of  the  same  varieties  originating  in  Oregon.  Figure  2,  page  17,  shows  the 
relative  volume  of  weekly  sales  of  each  of  these  late  varieties  from  Oregon  and 
from  California  individually  on  the  New  York  delivered-auction  market  in  1926. 
Table  1,  page  15,  shows  that  these  averages  are  based  upon  sales  of  several 
thousand  boxes  of  each  variety. 

(Footnote  continued  at  bottom  of  opposite  page.) 


BUL.  452]  ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF  THE  PEAR  INDUSTRY  41 

prices  than  the  composite  average  price  of  the  four  late  varieties  shown 
in  figure  11.  Reference  to  the  lower  right-hand  corner  of  the  figure 
shows  that  the  Bosc-Anjou  composite  average  has  been  noticeably 
higher  than  that  of  Bartletts  in  every  one  of  the  last  ten  years.  Win- 
ter Nelis  is  the  only  one  of  the  four  late  varieties  included  in  the 
lower  left  hand  corner  of  figure  11  the  purchasing  power  of  which 
has  averaged  less  than  that  of  California  Bartletts  on  the  New  York 
delivered-auction  market  during  the  last  ten  years. 

A  study  of  the  lower  left-hand  portion  of  the  figure  shows  that 
the  low  price  of  Winter  Nelis  pears  has  largely  been  responsible  for 
holding  down  the  composite  average  of  Cornice  and  Winter  Nelis 
prices  to  about  that  of  Bartletts.  Winter  Nelis  have  been  lower  in 
price  than  Cornice  in  all  but  three  of  the  last  ten  years,  and  have 
averaged  about  20  cents  per  box  less  than  California  Bartletts  during 
this  whole  period.  Cornice  have  in  almost  every  year  been  slightly 
higher  in  price  than  Bartletts,  averaging  not  quite  10  cents  a  box 
more  than  California  Bartletts.  Both  Bosc  and  Anjou,  however,  have 
been  noticeably  higher  in  price  than  Cornice,  Bartletts,  or  Winter 
Nelis  until  the  last  two  years.  In  the  eight  years,  1917-1924,  Anjous 
averaged  over  50  cents  a  box  more  than  California  Bartletts  and  Bosc 
nearly  $1.50  more. 

(Footnote  continued  from  preceding  page.) 

In  using  these  prices,  particularly  in  comparing  prices  of  the  different  varie- 
ties, it  should  be  remembered  that  the  difference  in  the  New  York  auction  price 
and  the  farm  price  received  by  the  grower  after  deducting  all  packing,  marketing, 
and  distribution  costs,  differs  considerably  for  the  different  varieties  of  pears. 
All  of  the  late  varieties  which  are  held  in  storage  before  being  sold  have  to  pay 
a  storage  charge  plus  the  additional  cost  of  hauling  and  handling  involved  in 
putting  the  pears  into  and  taking  them  out  of  storage.  Most  Bartletts  are  not 
held  in  cold  storage  before  being  sold  and  hence  are  not  subject  to  these  charges. 
Fig.  21,  p.  73,  and  table  36,  p.  107,  show  that  the  length  of  time  that  the  bulk 
of  different  late  varieties  of  pears  are  held  in  storage  varies  greatly.  The  storage 
charges  on  the  different  varieties  therefore  may  vary  greatly.  Carloads  of 
winter  pears  for  the  New  York  market  are  usually  stored  in  cold-storage  houses 
on  the  Jersey  City  side.  The  storage  rates  charged  by  the  four  chief  warehouses 
vary  as  follows:  one  charges  10  cents  a  box  for  the  first  month  and  7  cents  for 
each  month  or  fraction  of  a  month  thereafter,  another  10  and  6  cents,  respectively, 
and  two  charge  9  and  6  cents,  respectively.  Pears  stored  in  Jersey  City  are  loaded 
into  cars  and  brought  over  to  the  auction  piers  in  New  York  City  on  Manhattan 
Island  on  lighters.  A  switching  charge  of  $6.30  a  car  (of  about  520  boxes)  is 
the  only  additional  cost  for  this  movement. 

In  the  case  of  pears  stored  in  transit  en  route  to  New  York  City  at  points 
other  than  Jersey  City,  the  storage  rates  are  comparable  to  those  given  for  Jersey 
City  warehouses,  but  in  addition  to  the  regular  through  freight  rate,  the  railroad 
charges  6%  cents  a  hundred  for  handling  in  and  out  of  storage,  and  instead  of 
charging  the  through  rate  on  refrigeration  the  rate  in  and  out  is  charged  in  addi- 
tion. For  instance,  if  a  car  of  pears  were  stored  in  Kansas  City  and  subsequently 
sold  in  New  York,  the  rate  would  be  $1.60  a  hundred  to  New  York,  plus  6y2  cents, 
plus  the  carload  refrigeration  rate  from  California  to  Kansas  City  ($85),  plus 
the  carload  refrigeration  rate  from  Kansas  City  to  New  York.  The  refrigera- 
tion charges  on  a  typical  car  stored  in  Kansas  City  would  be  $85  from  California 
to  Kansas  City,  and  $70  more  from  Kansas  City  to  New  York,  or  a  total  refriger- 
ation charge  of  $155,  as  against  $]05  on  a  through  car. 


42 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


In  the  last  two  years,  however,  there  seems  to  have  been  some 
decrease  in  the  large  premium  that  Bosc  and  Anjou  have  commanded 
over  Bartletts.  It  does  not  seem  wise  to  attempt  to  judge  from  the 
data  pictured  in  figure  11  alone,  whether  there  is  a  decisive  tendency 
for  the  price  of  Bosc  and  Anjou  to  fall  more  nearly  to  the  level  of 
Bartlett  prices  than  they  have  in  the  past.  Evidence  of  increasing 
acreage  and  production  of  these  varieties  on  the  Pacific  Coast  would 
lead  one  to  expect  that  the  tendency  of  the  price  of  Bosc  and  Anjou 
might  be  downward,  unless  demand  is  stimulated  in  proportion  to 
the  increase  in  output.  No  such  stimulation  of  demand,  however,  at 
the  present  time  seems  to  be  occurring. 


Purchasing-  Power-  or*"  Go/rfbrnkr  Barf/e-fis  and  of  Chie-r~ 
Varieties    or~  Oregon  Pears,   19/7   -fo    I9Z<6. 
(New  York:  Delivered  -  Auci-ion  Price  De-f/aied) 


Oregon 
Bar+le+t-s 


/9I7     18       19       20      21       ZZ      23      24-      ZS      Z6      27     ZB 1917     /8       /9       ZO      Zl       ZZ      23     24      ZS      Z6      Z7       28 


Coli-fornta 


i — r 


Z3      24       25      26       27     28  1917 


Z3       24       25      26 


Fig.  11. — The  prices  of  the  better  late  varieties  of  Pacific  Coast  pears  have 
averaged  considerably  higher  than  those  of  Bartletts  in  the  last  ten  years.  The 
large  differential  in  their  favor,  however,  will  probably  be  reduced  as  their  pro- 
duction increases  in  the  next  few  years. 

(Data  from  table  35,  page  106.) 


How  to  Estimate  Ranch  Price  from  Eastern  Auction  Price. — Dur- 
ing that  part  of  the  pear-shipping  season  in  which  many  growers  have 
to  choose  between  the  alternatives  of  shipping  their  Bartlett  pears  to 
eastern  markets  and  of  selling  them  to  the  cannery,  it  is  advisable  to 
compare  the  price  per  ton  offered  by  canners  with  the  probable  returns 
from  the  same  pears  if  sold  in  the  eastern  delivered-auction  markets. 


Bul.452] 


ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF   THE   PEAR   INDUSTRY 


43 


TABLE  8 

Estimated  Equivalent  at  California  Eanches  of  Delivered-Auction  Prices 

of  Unstored  Bartletts  in  New  York,  Philadelphia, 

Baltimore,  Cleveland,  and  Pittsburg* 


Deliv- 
ered- 

Equivalent 
California  price 

Total 

charges 

per 

box 

Deliv- 
ered- 

Equivalent 
California  price 

Total 

Deliv- 
ered- 

Equivalent 
California  price 

Total 

price 
per 
box 

Per 
box 

Per 
ton 

price 
per 
box 

Per 
box 

Per 

ton 

per 
box 

price 
per 
box 

Per 
box 

Per 

ton 

per 
box 

1 

2 

3 

4 

1 

2 

3 

4 

1 

2 

3 

4 

$1.50 

-JO.  19 

-$9 

$1.69 

$2.40 

$0.64 

$28 

$1.76 

$3.30 

$1.48 

$64 

$1.82 

1.60 

-  0.10 

-  4 

1.70 

2.50 

0.73 

31 

1.77 

3.40 

1.57 

68 

1.83 

I  70 

-  0.01 

-  0  4 

1.71 

2  60 

0.83 

36 

1.77 

3  50 

1.66 

71 

1.84 

1.8C 

0.08 

3 

1.72 

2.70 

0.92 

40 

1.78 

3.60 

1.76 

76 

1.84 

1  90 

0  18 

8 

1.72 

2.80 

1  01 

44 

1.79 

3.70 

1.85 

79 

1.85 

2  00 

0  27 

12 

1.73 

2.90 

1  11 

48 

1.79 

3  80 

1.94 

83 

1.86 

2.10 

0.36 

15 

1  74 

3.00 

1.20 

52 

1.80 

3.90 

2  04 

88 

1.86 

2  20 

0.46 

20 

1.74 

3.10 

1.29 

55 

1.81 

4  00 

2.13 

92 

1.87 

2.30 

0.55 

24 

1.75 

3.20 

1.39 

60 

1.81 

4.10 

2.22 

95 

1.88 

*  It  costs  approximately  one  cent  more  per  box  to  ship  to  Boston  and  to  Quebec  than  to  the  markets 
listed  above  and  approximately  three  cents  less  to  Chicago  and  St.  Louis. 

Sources  of  data: 

This  table  is  an  adaptation  of  a  similar  one  presented  in  Hansen,  C.  J.,  and  O.  W.  Holmes.  Marketing 
California  pears,  1926.     U.  S.  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.  circular  (mimeo.)  pp.  25-27.    June,  1927. 

Col.  2.— Delivered-auction  price  in  col.  1  minus  the  total  charge  in  col.  4. 

Col.  3.— Price  per  box  in  col.  2  multiplied  by  43,  the  approximate  number  of  packed  boxes  to  a  net 
ton  of  pears. 

Col.  4.— Total  to  the  nearest  whole  cent  of  the  following  estimated  approximate  average  costs: 
package  and  packing  at  the  ranch  50  cents,  cartage  to  station  8  cents,  freight  and  refrigeration  to  New  York, 
Philadelphia,  Cleveland,  Baltimore,  and  Pittsburg,  $1,002,  and  a  sales  commission  of  7  per  cent  of  the 
gross  delivered-auction  price.  Freight  and  refrigeration  charges  to  certain  important  markets  not  ac- 
counted for  in  this  table  are  as  follows:  to  Chicago  and  St.  Louis  $0,973,  and  to  Boston  and  Quebec  $1,015 
per  box.  Approximate  average  costs  of  the  items  entering  into  the  costs  from  packing  at  the  ranch  until 
loaded  on  the  cars  are  given  below.    The  figures  do  not  include  picking  or  cost  of  production. 


Box  shook,  delivered  at  depot 15?c 

Hauling  shook,  4  miles \c 

Breakage  of  shook Vsc 

Labor — packing,  sorting,  nailing  boxes,  and  lidding 12^c 

Rental  of  packing  house 4  c 

Superintendence  and  overhead 4jC 

Loading  on  car  by  fruit  company 5  c 


Nails lc 

Labels  and  labeling lc 

Paper 6c 

Pads  (optional) 2c 

Hauling  to  depot 3c 

Wiping  by  hand 7c 

Precooling 7c 


Table  8  is  designed  to  aid  in  converting  eastern  auction  prices  into 
equivalent  California  farm  prices  when  all  the  major  costs  involved 
in  marketing  Bartlett  pears  by  this  method  are  taken  into  considera- 
tion. The  charges  which  have  been  deducted  from  the  eastern  price 
to  cover  all  the  various  costs  of  packing,  transportation,  and  marketing 
are,  of  course,  estimated  average  figures.  Aside  from  selling  commis- 
sion, freight,  refrigeration,  and  cost  of  box  shook,  it  is  obvious  that 
many  of  the  items  of  cost  included  in  the  estimate  of  total  charges 
will  vary  greatly,  depending  upon  the  particular  situation,  efficiency, 
etc.,  of  individual  growers  and  shippers.  Hence  those  using  this  table 
as  a  basis  for  comparing  prices  offered  at  the  ranch  with  actual  or 


44  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

with  probable  eastern  delivered-auction  prices,  should  substitute 
figures  more  representative  of  their  own  individual  costs  if  good 
estimates  or  specific  data  are  available  to  them.33 


EXPORTS   OF    FRESH    PEARS 

Proportion  of  United  States  Crop  Exported. — The  proportion  of 
the  United  States  pear  crop  exported  in  a  fresh  form  has  varied  from 
about  3.5  to  7  per  cent  in  the  last  five  years,  averaging  slightly  over 
5  per  cent.  It  is  estimated  that  the  canned  pears  exported  from  the 
country  during  this  same  period  have  utilized  nearly  6  per  cent  of 
the  crop,  the  percentage  varying  from  about  4.5  to  6.5.  Since  a  large 
part  of  our  small  output  of  dried  pears  is  exported,  it  is  probable 
that  on  the  average  in  recent  years  about  one-eighth  of  the  national 
pear  crop  has  found  an  outlet  in  foreign  markets. 

Upward  Trend  of  Fresh-Pear  Exports. — Figure  12  depicts  the 
very  apparent  upward  trend  in  the  value  (in  terms  of  dollars  of 
pre-war  value34)  of  fresh-pear  exports  from  the  United  States  in  the 
years  since  the  war,  as  compared  with  the  period  before  the  war. 
That  the  general  decline  from  1914  through  1918  was  a  temporary 
result  of  the  war  seems  to  be  indicated  by  the  very  decided  upward 
trend  in  the  value  of  exports  beginning  in  1919.  Data  on  the  quantity 
of  pears  exported  from  the  United  States  are  available  for  the  years 
1922  to  date  only.  These  data,  which  are  presented  in  table  10,  like 
those  on  value  in  figure  12  show  the  tendency  for  exports  of  fresh 
pears  to  increase  in  the  last  five  years. 

as  The  footnote  to  table  8  itemizes  the  average  costs  used  in  computing  the 
estimated  equivalent  at  California  ranches  from  the  eastern  delivered-auction  price. 
The  following  illustrations  of  the  wide  range  of  the  cost  of  certain  operations  are 
given  by  Hansen  and  Holmes  (Marketing  California  pears,  1926.  U.  S.  Bur.  Agr. 
Econ.  Cir.  (mimeo.),  pp.  25-27.  June,  1927.)  "The  wiping  of  pears  by  hand  or 
machine  will  vary,  ranging  from  2  to  7  cents  per  box.  If  the  fruit  is  precooled 
an  additional  charge  of  approximately  7  cents  per  box  should  be  added  to  the 
packing  charge.  The  cost  of  box  shook  varies  according  to  the  delivery  point 
and  amount  purchased.  Some  growers  or  packers  do  not  always  take  into  account 
the  rental  of  the  packing  house.  Packing  and  hauling  in  Mendocino  or  Lake 
County  is  estimated  to  run  as  high  as  75  cents  per  box,  on  account  of  the  longer 
hauling  distance  for  supplies  and  the  packed  fruit. "  The  freight  rate  of  $1.60 
per  cwt.  is  used,  covering  points  to  Omaha  and  east.  Eefrigeration  charges  to 
different  markets  range  from  $75  to  $110  a  car,  according  to  the  market,  the 
rate  to  New  York  being  $105  and  to  Chicago  $90. 

Most  California  Bartletts  are  not  stored  but  the  majority  of  the  late  varieties 
of  pears  are.  In  estimating  the  farm  price  equivalent  to  the  eastern  delivered- 
auction  price  of  pears  which  have  been  in  cold  storage  it  is  therefore  necessary 
to  subtract  the  storage  and  other  charges  incidental  to  storing  from  the  auction 
price  in  addition  to  the  total  charges  given  in  table  8.  See  footnote  32,  page  40, 
for  the  usual  charges  incidental  to  cold  storage. 

3*  See  explanation  of  purchasing  power  in  footnote  28,  page  36. 


Bul.  452] 


ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF   THE  PEAR  INDUSTRY 


45 


Official  British  statistics  show  that  the  United  Kingdom  has  im- 
ported a  much  greater  quantity  of  fresh  pears  in  recent  years  than 
before  the  war.  During  the  period  1909  to  1913  the  British  imported 
an  average  of  about  280,000  boxes  of  pears  a  year  from  us,  compared 
with  a  yearly  average  of  about  464,000  in  the  five  years  1921-1925. 
This  change  represents  an  increase  of  about  65  per  cent.  Since  the 
British  have  taken  from  one-third  to  one-half  of  our  total  exports  of 
fresh  pears  in  recent  years,  these  figures  help  to  substantiate  the 
apparent  upward  trend  of  the  total  quantity  of  fresh  pears  exported 
from  this  country  in  recent  years. 


Deflated     Va/ue    of  United  States  Fresh- Pear  Ex-ports,     Crop  Years,   1905  -  /9Z<£. 

Z8 

Z4 
Z.O 

I" 
1 

Z.O 
16 

0  1  Z 

| 

\o.e 

0.4 

oo 

IZ 
OS 
0.4 

o.o 

5 

— '— 

\ 

1 

\ 

/ 

/ 

\ 

1 

\ 

/ 

05   CXS       07      OB      09     I9IO       II         IZ        13        1-4      19/5     /(B        17        IB       /9      I9ZO    Zl       ZZ.       Z3      Z4      1925  Z<S     Z7 

xf 

Fig.  12. — Aside  from  a  temporary  decline  in  fresh-pear  exports  from  1910 
through  1918,  due  to  the  war,  the  general  trend  has  been  rapidly  upward  in  the 
last  twenty  years. 

(Data  from  table  9,  page  47.) 


Position  of  Our  Fresh-Pear  Exports  in  British  Isles. — The  fact 
that  the  United  Kingdom  and  Canada  together  have  taken  from  80 
to  90  per  cent  of  our  fresh-pear  exports  in  the  last  five  years  (see 
table  10)  justifies  a  brief  discussion  of  the  position  of  our  pear  exports 
in  these  two  countries.  The  United  Kingdom,  the  only  European 
importer  of  American  fresh  pears  of  any  importance,  has  been  the 
destination  of  from  one-third  to  one-half  of  our  total  fresh-pear 
exports  during  the  last  five  years,  averaging  43  per  cent.  From  the 
point  of  view  of  the  United  Kingdom,  British  imports  of  fresh  pears 
from  the  United  States  during  the  same  period  have  ranged  from 


46  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

10  to  56  per  cent  of  the  total  imports,  averaging  about  17  per  cent, 
and  giving  us  a  rank  of  third  among  foreign  sources  of  British 
supplies.35 

France  and  Belgium,  the  two  chief  sources  of  fresh  pears  con- 
sumed in  the  British  Isles,  supply  a  substantial  majority  of  the  im- 
ports and  have  done  so  for  many  years.  In  recent  years  the  home 
production  of  pears  appears  to  have  constituted  only  about  one-fourth 
of  the  supply  of  fresh  pears  consumed  in  the  British  Isles.  Dutch 
pears  are  imported  into  England  to  some  extent,  likewise,  although 
they  find  their  readiest  foreign  outlet  in  German  industrial  areas. 
Very  few  pears  from  Czechoslovakia,  an  outstanding  European  pear- 
producing  and  exporting  country,  reach  the  English  market,  most  of 
its  exports  going  to  Germany  and  Scandinavia. 

Supplies  from  the  British  dominions  of  South  Africa  and  Aus- 
tralia, which  reach  the  British  market  largely  from  January  to  May, 
constitute  only  5  to  10  per  cent  of  British  consumption.  Since  at 
least  95  per  cent  of  our  fresh  pears  exported  to  the  United  Kingdom 
are  moved  in  the  six  months  from  July  through  December,  the  outlook 
for  the  bulk  of  our  fresh-pear  exports  in  the  British  market  can 
scarcely  be  expected  to  be  appreciably  affected  by  developments  in 
these  two  countries.  Their  present  and  probable  future  influence 
in  the  British  canned-pear  market,  however,  cannot  be  so  lightly 
regarded.36  Likewise,  considering  the  relatively  rapid  expansion  in 
the  last  fifteen  years  of  fresh-pear  shipments  into  the  United  Kingdom 
from  these  countries  during  the  winter  and  early  spring,  it  would 
seem  that  American  exports  of  late  winter  pears  may  feel  increasing 
competition  from  these  two  countries.  At  present,  however,  the  fruit 
industry  of  South  Africa  is  relatively  small  and  there  is  little  likeli- 
hood that  this  country  will  become  a  very  important  contributor  to 
the  world  production  and  trade  in  fresh,  canned,  and  dried  fruits  for 
another  generation  or  so. 

Considerable  encouragement  to  American  shippers  seeking  to 
expand  their  sales  of  fresh  pears  in  European  markets  may  be  taken 
from  the  statement  by  Smith  that  "European  pear  production  does 
not  threaten  our  present  markets,  nor  does  it  promise  to  check  the 


35  This  discussion  of  fresh-pear  imports  into  the  United  Kingdom  is  based 
primarily  upon:  British  Imperial  Economic  Committee  Report  on  marketing  and 
preparing  for  market  of  foodstuffs  produced  in  the  overseas  parts  of  the  Empire, 
Third  Report— Fruit,  pp.  150-152.  1926;  and  also  upon  IT.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  Bur. 
Agr.  Econ.  Foreign  News  on  Fruit,  mimeographed  releases,  embodying  foreign 
statistics  and  market  news  on  fruits  gathered  largely  by  Edwin  Smith,  the 
Bureau's  Fruit  Specialist  in  Foreign  Marketing,  who  is  stationed  in  Europe. 

30  See  discussion,  pages  94-97. 


Bul.  452] 


ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF   THE  PEAR  INDUSTRY 


47 


TABLE  9 

Value  and  Purchasing  Power  of  Fresh-Pear  Exports  from  the 

United  States,  Crop  Years  1905-1926 


Year 

beginning 
July  1 

Value 

Purchasing 
power 

All- 
commodity 
wholesale- 
price  index 

Year 

beginning 

July  1 

Value 

Purchasing 
power 

All- 
commodity 
wholesale- 
price  index 

1 

2 

3 

4 

1 

2 

3 

4 

1905 

$  631,972 

$  710,081 

89 

1917 

$  978,298 

$  514,894 

190 

1906 

675,944 

726,822 

93 

1918 

1,105,181 

541,755 

204 

1907 

288,918 

307,360 

94 

1919 

1,857,809 

804,246 

231 

1908 

546,198 

574,945 

95 

1920 

2,215,000 

1,184,492 

187 

1909 

302,958 

291,306 

104 

1921 

1,477,128 

1,018,709 

145 

1910 

578,067 

595,945 

97 

1922 

1,616,850 

1,016,887 

159 

1911 

784,627 

808,894 

97 

1923 

2,498,950 

1,633,301 

153 

1912 

796,913 

781,287 

102 

1924 

2,253,383 

1,426,192 

158 

1913 

1,402,924 

1,389,034 

101 

1925 

4,083,135 

2,568,009 

159 

1914 

992,497 

982,670 

101 

1926 

3,983,918 

2,595,945 

150 

1915 

691,732 

612,152 

113 

1927 

1916 

1,356,259 

875,006 

155 

1928 

Source  of  data: 

Col.  2. — The  primary  source  of  exports  for  all  years  is  publications  of  the  U.  S.  Department  of  Com- 
merce. Data  for  1905-1919  from  compilation  in  Amer.  Pomological  Society  Proc.  36-37,  (1920):  196;  for 
the  year  1920  from  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Yearbook  1923;  for  the  years  1921-1926  compiled  from  Monthly 
Summary  of  Foreign  Commerce. 

Col.  3.— Items  in  col.  2  divided  by  items  for  corresponding  year  in  col.  4  and  multiplied  by  100. 

Col.  4.— U.  S.  Dept.  Labor  all-commodity  wholesale-price  index  for  the  United  States  for  years 
corresponding  to  those  in  col.  1. 


TABLE  10 

Exports  of  Fresh  Pears  from  the  United  States  by  Chief  Countries  of 

Destination,  Calendar  Years  1922-1926 

(In  thousands  of  pounds,  i.e.,  000  omitted.) 


Average 
1922-1926 

1926 

1925 

1924 

1923 

1922 

Destination 

Thou- 
sands 
of  lb. 

Per 
cent 

Thou- 
sands 
of  lb. 

Per 
cent 

Thou- 
sands 
of  lb. 

Per 
cent 

Thou- 
sands 
of  lb. 

Per 
cent 

Thou- 
sands 
of  lb. 

Per 
cent 

Thou- 
sands 
of  lb. 

Per 
cent 

United  Kingdom 

23,222 
22,808 
2,568 
2,138 
1,222 
664 
1,207 

43  1 
42  4 
4.8 
4  0 
2.3 
1.2 
2.2 

29,971 
27,909 
4,331 
2,062 
2,200 
593 
1,675 

43.7 
40  7 
6  3 
3.0 
3.0 
0  9 
2.4 

35,895 
25,933 
4,493 
2,163 
1,557 
636 
2,925 

48.8 
35  2 
6.1 
2.9 
2  1 
0.9 
4  0 

14,319 

20,845 

1,944 

2,267 

896 

719 

526 

34  5 
50  1 

4  7 

5  5 
22 
17 
1.3 

23,568 

21,628 

1,261 

2,474 

884 

757 

614 

46.0 
42.3 
2  5 
4.8 
17 
15 
12 

12,359 
17,726 
812 
1,726 
574 
614 
294 

36  2 
52  0 

2  4 

Cuba . . 

5  0 

Argentina 

1  7 

Mexico 

1  8 

Others    . 

0  9 

Total 

53,829 

100  0 

68,741 

100.0 

73,602 

100.0 

41,516 

100.0 

51,186 

100.0 

34,105 

100  0 

Source  of  data:  Exports  in  approximate  net  pounds,  exclusive  of  weight  of  package,  as  compiled  by 
the  U.  S.  Bureau  of  Foreign  and  Domestic  Commerce  from  annual  numbers  of  Foreign  Commerce  and 
Navigation  of  the  United  States  for  the  years  1922-1925.  Year  1926  from  Commerce  Reports  1926(15).-  88. 
1927.  Quantities  exported  are  not  available  prior  to  1922.  Averages  1922-1926  and  percentages  of  the  total 
exports  of  fresh  pears  for  each  year  computed  by  the  author. 


48  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

gradual  extension  of  our  outlets  across  the  Atlantic."37  Fraser  is 
also  optimistic  over  the  prospects  for  an  expansion  of  our  fresh-pear 
exports  to  European  markets.  He  states  that  ' '  one  of  the  finest  open- 
ings for  fruit  is  the  British  market  for  winter  pears.  ...  A  pear 
satisfactory  to  the  Christmas  trade  will  have  little  opposition  in  the 
British  markets  because  the  French  and  Belgian  pears  are  difficult  to 
keep  so  late."38 

Canadian  Production,  Imports,  and  Exports. — Canada  is  the  only 
portion  of  the  British  Empire  whose  exports  of  fresh  pears  arrive 
upon  the  British  market  at  a  time  to  compete  with  the  bulk  of  our 
supplies.  Such  competition  as  we  have  met  or  probably  will  meet 
from  Canadian  fresh-pear  exports  to  the  British  market,  however, 
cannot  be  considered  serious.  Considerably  less  than  5  per  cent  of  the 
supply  of  fresh  pears  consumed  in  the  British  Isles  in  recent  years 
has  been  contributed  by  Canada,  which  does  not  on  the  average  pro- 
duce enough  for  its  own  consumption. 

The  Canadian  market  is  a  close  second  to  the  British  Isles  among 
our  foreign  markets  for  fresh  pears.  Like  the  British  Isles,  Canada 
has  taken  from  one-third  to  one-half  of  the  total  fresh-pear  exports 
from  the  United  States  in  recent  years,  the  two  markets  tending  to 
alternate  in  the  position  of  first  place.  Canadian  imports  have  aver- 
aged 42  per  cent  of  the  United  States  exports  of  fresh  pears  in  the 
last  five  years,  or  1  per  cent  less  than  the  British  Isles.  Approxi- 
mately 99  per  cent  of  the  total  Canadian  imports  of  fresh  pears  have 
come  from  the  United  States  in  recent  years.  Fresh-pear  exports  from 
the  United  States  into  Canada  greatly  exceed  total  Canadian  exports 
and  have  been  increasing  in  recent  years.  Moreover,  Canadian  pro- 
duction of  pears  in  the  last  few  years  has  been  decreasing,  and  both 
bearing  and  non-bearing  acreage  of  pears  in  1921  were  slightly 
smaller  than  in  1911. 39  Thus  it  would  seem  that  the  Canadian  market 
as  an  outlet  for  our  pears  promises  to  be  an  expanding  one. 

Minor  Foreign  Markets  for  Fresh  Pears. — Compared  with  the 
British  and  Canadian  imports  of  our  fresh  pears,  the  other  four 
importing  countries  shown  individually  in  table  10,  are  relatively 
unimportant  outlets  for  our  fruit.  These  four  markets — Brazil,  Cuba, 
Argentina,  and  Mexico — have  together  taken  13  per  cent  of  the  fresh- 
pear  exports  from  the  United  States  in  the  five  years  1922-1926. 
However,  these  markets,  although  relatively  small,  may  develop  in  the 
future. 


37  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  Bureau  Agr.  Econ.  Foreign  News  on  Apples  (mimeo.), 
52:  6.     1926. 

•ts  Fraser,  Samuel.  American  fruits,  pp.  387,  388.  Orange  Judd  Pub.  Co., 
New  York.     1924. 

so  Canadian  Dom.  Bur.  Stat.     Canadian  Yearbook  1924  :  246.     1925. 


Bul.  452 


ECONOMIC   ASPECTS  OF   THE   PEAR   INDUSTRY 


49 


>»       2. 


r 

3 
f 

f 

J 

3 
s 

i 

3 

1 

i 

is 

=  p 
B"8 

*  p 

?i 

-    t?  o 

<< 

3 

3" 

-J 

9 

2. 

3 

» 

Boston 

Philadelphia 
Pittsburg 

Minneapolis. 
Kansas  City. 

Denver 

Los  Angeles 
San  Francisc 

19M  Total 

Boston 

New  York 

Pittsburg 

Philadelphia 

Chicago 

St.  Louis 

55 

1     9 

z> 

o 

«< 

d 

*-         o<                    o 

M     h                "J               *^ 

o  3 

to    os    *-           *-    *-           ►-oo*-©cn«oi*k^* 

»    O)    M             tOtOCn©CCCOOOOo 
Op&-tOOO>(».tOCT>i-'^I~.IOOl 
^NCn^JMMllkMMW    CO^ 

£.cT 

? 

»-)CC©t*».QOOOOOCOC©*-tOOO-fc» 
N->—    COl—CnOOtOi^OOOSl^^-l—CO 

O 

CO 

5 

p 

Pi 

b:o  ^ 

co 

tO                             Cr> 

l—                      CO             Oi 

■o  ^2 

P 

*-Co©©o>->©©<o©OitO>*>.tOfce 

MtOOOH-OO^H-tOCOO 

3^o 

CD 

Wl^Cnt9!SOOlOlUCJ>MaiOllk« 

ua>cncoos^MCncout$ 

p  pop 

co 

d 

i—             CO                               ^ 

to                   en            >~ 

o  3 

to    Cn                     i-*                             *-             OS    —    in    *»     i-i 
OieOtOtO©00Cn-^J>-'a>>**00H-O>iQ 

eoaoiooMOogoi^WM^oouct 

x>  a>               ^-H-ocoto^i^iOi 

S.O 

OCOMOl^OlffiCnNWCnte 

co  P 

■vio>*-co~jto©co©>*».>—   o 

a 

co 

3 

to                           C7> 

K-                 to          o> 

Per  ce 

of  Paci 

Coas 

shipme 

5 

►d 
p 

»-»#►© 

qo  m  id 

©o©o«o©cn>-»coco>-. 

»C5*CnCCi|iOMC>lvto 

^COOOOOOtn^-coCOO 

tJCOMCOOOOOOOOl(kO)tD!« 

0. 

5 

3  *♦  cn3 

0 

sr     «  * 

O 

0 

Per  cen 

each  ci 

unloa 

suppli 

p 

CO 

ei»Meici>*ai»i')*>ici!(ii!Bs 

ocOMCso^ootosHeN 

SMNOCMCOHCntSMCOOo 

e*k(H»«^»9OlO0IO«OiOlC3 

co  X, 

r*             i® 

N-                        tO             *^ 

d 

o  3 

3 

os          ©         h-          fcs 
:      to         m  M  co   m  w  J>          ~4   >*»   -i   o>    s 

to    CO    i—    to    P--    OS 

W    to            MHCSMSOCOOite 

ir 

0 

cnH^totSM'ecjioov^wcott 

OS»)^IM«ltSOiS»(»OS 

s 

0 

&     .oS 

ct> 

8 

*-             *-                               CO 

i-*                   to            C» 

rcen 
re.  a 
Wast 
ipme 

9 

o  o 

oooo>—  ocooco>—  oo 

OOOOOOCn*>.H-c»tO-*-. 

P 

4k.    I— 

Cl<M^Nt9HO)C«OtOO 

*coHCo»ooco»cooHCa 

3 

3  r  p  ci- 

a. 

&      P-o 

co              5, 

3 

p 

co 

5* 

3 

TO 

IO    H    ti    Ij    CO    U             to             1—    *-    J» 

cocotoi^cototototo 

Per  cen 

each  ci 

unloa 

suppli 

C£-vl*>^lOGO^Jl^O>H~c0COte»O 

^l^OlHOOODtOOCOMtc 

O 

2  0-5-^ 
^     m-2, 

3 

ci 

to                         Oi 

co          -< 

O  3 

to    en                                              ->|           en   ^    u   CO    Co 

-JC73                                        00    Cn     h-     >*»•     in     C~ 

£  cT 

as  c*>   i— »         >.|iikcocoaicnaii»^oc« 

(DCnetCOOO-g-OOCnUCOCnfrCti 

-vlOt-tCO-olCO-J-vIOaOOOO 

^!O*MCliN0000WCDC0J>. 

3  p 
0- 

co 

7 
0 

£.     ^ 

3"      « 

3 

00                               Oi 

CO             OS 

S"Q2 

cocnooooooc»o>—  oco<«».^ 
0«itOH-«D05>*k>*^c»050^-«ocno 

OCnOOOO^JCn    —    OCn-*^ 

3  £.8 

CD  3^3 

O 
£- 

3   •     c*- 

p^ 

»     2, 

0 

3 

1 
1 

C      ~,     <i      -1 

p' 

*00Mt5l«'M*CO**CnMCO0l)lli      1 

?otoooto^->*».©^i©to©ooootoc>    1 

050H-CCCO*-COOl4».rf».-4*>. 

E2  «  re 
3tP  --3 

OS     >**■*-     «J     i— >     9     l^     M    l»    CO    CO     % 

s-e^r 

co  — , 

50 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


TABLE  12 

Monthly  Carlot  Shipments  of  Fresh  Pears  by  Chief  States  and  Groups, 

1924-1927 


California 

U.S. 

Oregon 

total 

total 

Northern 

Central 

Southern 

Crop  year  and  month 

Total 

district! 

district! 

districtf 

Per 

Per 

Per 

Per 

Per 

Cars 

Cars 

cent 

Cars 

cent 

Cars 

cent 

Cars 

cent 

Cars 

cent 

1924  Total 

16,246 

3,791 

23 

6,306 

39 

,4,321 

27 

1,845 

// 

140 

/ 

June 

228 

0 

0 

228 

100 

227 

99 

1 

1 

0 

0 

July 

2,887 

73 

3 

2,780 

96 

2,410 

83 

368 

13 

2 

0 

August 

4;  744 

1,533 

32 

2,442 

52 

1,601 

34 

730 

16 

111 

2 

September 

4,652 

1,531 

33 

574 

12 

70 

2 

487 

10 

17 

0 

October 

2,831 

442 

16 

216 

7 

12 

0 

201 

7 

3 

0 

November 

550 

132 

24 

47 

8 

0 

0 

40 

7 

7 

1 

December 

103 

55 

53 

7 

7 

1 

1 

6 

6 

0 

0 

January 

113 

5 

4 

2 

2 

0 

0 

2 

2 

0 

0 

February 

87 

2 

2 

3 

3 

0 

0 

3 

3 

0 

0 

March 

37 

5 

13 

7 

19 

0 

0 

7 

19 

0 

0 

April 

14 

13 

93 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1925  Total 

21,272 

6,804 

27 

8,691 

41 

6,676 

31 

1,866 

9 

149 

/ 

June 

14 

0 

0 

13 

93 

13 

93 

0 

0 

0 

0 

July 

3,961 

31 

1 

3,804 

96 

3,484 

88 

320 

8 

0 

0 

August 

6,851 

1,823 

27 

3,606 

53 

2,818 

41 

724 

11 

64 

1 

September 

6,593 

2,479 

38 

929 

14 

337 

5 

529 

8 

63 

1 

October 

2,830 

826 

29 

252 

9 

24 

1 

220 

8 

8 

0 

November 

405 

230 

57 

40 

10 

0 

0 

26 

6 

14 

4 

December 

110 

58 

53 

11 

10 

0 

0 

11 

10 

0 

0 

January 

176 

128 

73 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

February 

164 

117 

71 

9 

5 

0 

0 

9 

5 

0 

0 

March 

120 

72 

60 

25 

18 

0 

0 

25 

18 

0 

0 

April 

31 

22 

71 

1 

3 

0 

0 

1 

3 

0 

0 

2 

2 

100 

1 

50 

0 

0 

1 

50 

0 

0 

1926*  Total 

24,863 

8,101 

33 

11,358 

46 

8,820 

35 

2,438 

10 

100 

+ 

862 
6,072 
7,569 

0 

398 

3,112 

0 

7 
40 

862 
5,654 
3,632 

100 
93 
47 

860 
4,565 
2,962 

100 
75 
39 

2 

1,089 

648 

0 
18 
8 

0 

0 

22 

0 

July 

0 

August 

0 

September 

6,045 

2,910 

48 

819 

14 

399 

7 

406 

7 

14 

0 

October 

2,771 

650 

23 

253 

9 

34 

1 

182 

7 

37 

1 

635 
302 

318 
231 

50 

77 

91 
15 

14 
5 

0 
0 

0 
0 

65 
14 

10 
5 

26 
1 

4 

December 

0 

January 

218 

166 

76 

6 

3 

0 

0 

6 

3 

0 

0 

February 

229 

189 

83 

10 

5 

0 

0 

10 

5 

0 

0 

March 

123 

100 

81 

13 

11 

0 

0 

13 

11 

0 

0 

April 

37 

27 

73 

3 

8 

0 

0 

3 

8 

0 

0 

May                          

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1927*  Total 

17,896 

5,059 

28 

8,992 

50.2 

7,121 

39.8 

1,803 

10.1 

68 

0.0 

July 

August 

2,296 
6,914 

2,174 

95 

2,147 

94 

27 

1 

1,078 

16 

4,947 

72 

3,854 

56 

1,084 

16 

9 

0 

5,630 

2,722 

48 

1,459 

26 

1,066 

19 

380 

7 

13 

0 

2,307 
511 

238 

866 
220 
173 

38 
43 
73 

279 
104 
29 

12 
20 
12 

52 

1 
1 

2 
0 
0 

213 

77 
22 

9 
15 

9 

14 

26 

6 

1 

5 

2 

See  footnotes  on  opposite  page. 


BUL.  4~>2]  ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF  THE  PEAR  INDUSTRY  51 


CHIEF    DOMESTIC    MARKETS    FOR    CALIFORNIA    PEARS 

Table  11  shows  that  over  60  per  cent  of  the  fresh-pear  shipments 
from  California  were  unloaded  in  about  a  dozen  large  cities  in  1925 
and  1926.  Over  half  of  the  shipments  were  unloaded  in  a  few  large 
cities  lying  north  of  the  Mason  and  Dixon  line  and  east  of  the  Mis- 
sissippi River ;  New  York  alone,  with  its  vast  trading  radius,  received 
about  30  per  cent;  and  Chicago,  Boston,  and  Philadelphia,  the  other 
more  important  markets,  unloaded  between  17  and  18  per  cent  in 
1925  and  1926. 

MONTHLY    VARIATION    IN    MOVEMENT 

United  States  Shipments  Heavy  from  July  to  October. — In  the 
last  three  years  nearly  95  per  cent  of  the  national  carlot  shipments 
of  pears  have  moved  in  the  four  months  from  July  to  October  inclu- 
sive. Practically  all  of  the  remainder  have  rolled  to  market  in 
gradually  diminishing  monthly  quantities  during  the  period  from 
November  to  May  each  year.  In  a  few  recent  years  early  shipments 
from  California  in  June  have  also  been  appreciable  (see  table  12), 
notably  in  1926,  an  abnormally  early  season  in  which  nearly  9  per 
cent  of  the  pear  shipments  from  the  state  moved  in  this  one  month. 
During  the  three  years  1924-1926  an  average  of  about  30  per  cent 
of  the  total  pear  shipments  of  the  country  have  rolled  in  August, 
approximately  28  per  cent  in  September,  18  per  cent  in  July,  14 
per  cent  in  October,  and  less  than  3  per  cent  in  November.  The 
general  tendency,  however,  in  recent  years  has  been  for  heavy  pear 
shipments  throughout  the  period  from  the  middle  of  July  to  the 
middle  of  September  (see  figure  13).  The  major  peak  of  weekly 
shipments  has  varied  from  about  the  middle  of  August  to  the  third 
week  in  September,  being  determined  largely  by  the  relative  earliness 
or  lateness  and  the  relative  seasonal  variations  in  the  quantities  of 
pears  shipped  from  each  of  three  chief  commercial  pear-producing 
sections — California,  the  Pacific  Northwest,  and  New  York. 

(Footnotes  to  table  12  on  opposite  page) : 

*  Data  for  1926  and  1927  are  preliminary,  incomplete,  and  subject  to  considerable  revision.  The 
United  States  total  for  1926  in  this  table  accounts  for  only  24,863  carloads  by  months,  whereas  the  cumu- 
lative total  for  the  season  revised  to  April  30,  1927,  is  25,283,  leaving  a  balance  of  420  cars  not  accounted 
for  in  the  preliminary  monthly  data  exhibited  in  this  table.  Data  for  1924  are  final  figures  and  those 
for  1925  are  subject  to  minor  revisions  only. 

t  The  California  districts  correspond  to  those  demarcated  on  the  map  of  California  shown  in  figure  5, 
page  30,  except  that  the  data  for  the  southern  district  in  this  table  includes  shipments  from  Imperial 
Valley. 

Sources  of  data:  Data  for  1924  and  1926  (calendar  years)  compiled  from  mimeographed  summaries 
of  monthly  carload  shipments  of  pears  by  states  issued  by  the  U.  S.  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.;  for  1925  and  1927 
calendar  years)  compiled  from  monthly  issues  of  Crops  and  Markets. 


52 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


United  States 

Weekly 

&et 

vr 

Shipments 

by  Chief  Sections  of  Origin,  /9Z5  and  /9Z6 

/6 

\ 

^  tz 
0 

*    8 

.      /9k 
'  Cali-fc 

irni 

°^±. 

1 

I 1                   Or&aon  *  Washinai-on 

777-  ^i 1  C 

v///  '4''  -rr?  * 

'*///    /y  ''ft il — ll — 

Wl,  '%  y//.  V~                         rAif  Othor  3taiBi 

>//'  ',/>/.  '//', 

■initio 

I 

-vz 

I* 

■ 

; 

■/<■ 

— - 

Sfe^ 

-ft 

V 
3- 


1925 


ZO  ZT    4 
June 


^LJBlifa. 


tz 


II      /0    Z5 
Uuly 


8      15    ZZ  Z9     5     IZ     /9 
Aujas-t-  September 


3     IO     IT  Z4   3f 
Oc-f-ober- 


r    ut   zi  zo 

November 


Fig.  13. — California  Bartlett  pear  shipments  dominate  the  eastern  market  the 
first  six  weeks  of  the  shipping  season.  Pacific  Northwest  pears  begin  to  roll  in 
appreciable  and  rapidly  increasing  quantities  about  the  time  of  the  peak  of  Cali- 
fornia shipments. 

(Data  from  table  18,  page  66.) 


Pacific  Coast  Usually  Leads  Until  September. — In  the  three  years 
1924-1926,  pear  shipments  from  the  Pacific  Coast  have  averaged  over 
90  per  cent  of  national  shipments  in  the  months  of  July  and  August. 
Heavy  shipments  from  California  alone  are  responsible  for  an  average 
of  about  4,300  cars  of  pears  (about  18  per  cent  of  the  national  annual 
shipments)  during  July.  August  shipments,  which  have  averaged 
nearly  6,400  cars  during  this  same  three-year  period,  are  usually 
larger  than  those  of  any  other  month,  as  one-third  to  one-half  of  the 
heavy  movement  from  California  to  the  East  rolls  in  this  month, 
nearly  40  per  cent  of  Pacific  Northwest  shipments,  and  a  small  pro- 
portion, but  appreciable  quantity,  of  eastern  pears. 

Eastern  Pears  Move  Largely  in  September  and  October. — National 
pear  shipments  in  September,  which  averaged  nearly  5,800  carloads  in 
the  three  years  1924-1926,  have  been  nearly  as  large   as  those   in 


Bul.  452] 


ECONOMIC   ASPECTS  OF   THE   PEAR   INDUSTRY 


53 


August.  California  shipments  are  relatively  small  in  this  month,  but 
those  from  the.  Pacific  Northwest  are  usually  large,  being  about  as 
heavy  as  in  August.  In  addition,  heavy  shipments  from  the  eastern 
states  are  made  in  September.  From  two-thirds  to  three-fourths  of 
the  average  October  shipments  of  2,800  cars  originate  in  states  east 
of  the  Rocky  Mountains,  the  peak  occurring  in  either  September  or 
October.  (See  figure  20,  page  71.)  The  pears  originating  in  the 
east  do  not,  however,  have  nearly  as  much  effect  on  the  price  of  Cali- 
fornia boxed  pears  as  a  corresponding  volume  from  California  or  the 
Pacific  Northwest  would  have. 


Monthly    Int&rstcrfe    Shipmerrts  of   Pears     -from     California 


-Sept.-  Dec. -st' 


Fig.  14. — In  the  last  20  years  there  has  been  a  tremendous  increase  in  ship- 
ments of  pears  from  California,  particularly  in  July  and  August. 
(Data  from  table  13.) 


About  two-thirds  of  the  November  shipments  of  approximately  500 
carloads  of  pears  have  been  of  eastern  origin  in  recent  years.  After 
November  most  pear  shipments  come  from  cold-storage  stocks.  In 
recent  years  they  have  come  chiefly  from  the  Pacific  Coast,  particu- 
larly Oregon  and  Washington.  New  York,  however,  usually  con- 
tributes a  portion  of  this  winter  and  spring  movement. 

Monthly  California  Interstate  Shipments,  1903-1927.*° — Figure  14 
shows  the  great  increase  in  the  July  and  August  movement  of  pears 


4o  Until  very  recently  practically  all  the  interstate  shipments  of  pears  from 
California  originated  north  of  the  Tehachapi  range.  The  monthly  interstate  ship- 
ments from  the  state  as  shown  in  table  13  are  therefore,  a  reliable  indicator  of 
the  changes  which  have  occurred  in  the  seasonal  movement  of  shipments  from 
the  whole  state  during  the  last  two  decades.  These  are  the  only  available  data 
which  exclude  carlot  shipments  of  California  pears  to  the  canneries  in  the  state. 


54 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


TABLE  13 

California  Interstate  Pear  Shipments,  Annual  1895-1927,  Monthly 

1903-1927 
(All  classes  of  equipment.) 


Annual  shipments  1895-1902,  in  cars 


Year 


Carlots 


1895 


,187 


1886 


,624 


1897 


,640 


,595 


1899 


1,684 


1900 


2,115 


1901 


,535 


1902 


2,011 


Monthly  and  annual  shipments  1903-1926 

in  cars 

Year 

Total 

June 

July 

Aug. 

Sept. 

Oct. 

Nov. 

Dec. 

1903 

1,720 

3 

684 

727 

215 

62 

29 

0 

1904 

2,186 

5 

1,149 

808 

187 

34 

3 

0 

1905 

1,013 

4 

319 

537 

123 

29 

1 

0 

1906 

1,513 

4 

531 

749 

197 

31 

1 

0 

1907 

1,039 

14 

598 

358 

66 

3 

0 

0 

1908 

2,702 

11 

1,040 

1,155 

408 

82 

4 

2 

1909 

2,638 

24 

1,502 

864 

208 

40 

0 

0 

1910 

2,361 

43 

1,383 

713 

191 

31 

0 

0 

1911 

2,325 

5 

610 

1,246 

276 

169 

19 

0 

1912 

3,135 

4 

1,101 

1,425 

445 

135 

25 

0 

1913 

2,496 

29 

1,317 

783 

256 

109 

2 

0 

1914 

2,725 

60 

1,258 

921 

350 

124 

12 

0 

1915 

2,646 

8 

1,194 

977 

359 

81 

27 

0 

1916 

3,701 

175 

2,036 

1,166 

245 

75 

4 

0 

1917 

4,802 

12 

1,459 

2,367 

698 

212 

50 

4 

1918 

4,571 

2 

1,334 

2,458 

415 

287 

75 

0 

1919 

4,248 

2 

1,968 

1,581 

459 

186 

51 

1 

1920 

4,391 

6 

2,257 

1,432 

365 

263 

63 

5 

1921 

4,294 

3 

1,686 

1,868 

367 

271 

94 

2 

1922 

5,755 

5 

1,648 

2,587 

1,047 

272 

160 

32 

1923 

7,036 

198 

3,871 

2,075 

504 

283 

83 

6 

1924 

5,821 

331 

2,380 

2,235 

556 

235 

51 

16 

1925 

7,822 

49 

3,373 

3,066 

931 

282 

52 

14 

1926 

9,897 

853 

4,276 

3,473 

912 

206 

70 

36 

1927 

8,200 

5 

2,090 

4,192 

1,345 

293 

95 

33 

1928 

*  Data  for  1927  are  preliminary  and  subject  to  revision. 

Sources  of  data:  Data  for  1895-1920  include  interstate  shipments  from  north  of  Tehachapi  only, 
since  these  are  the  only  data  available  for  these  years.  Estimates  indicate  that  shipments  from  south  of 
Tehachapi,  however,  were  inconsequential  before  1915.  They  may  have  totaled  about  100  cars  in  some 
of  the  years  between  then  and  1921,  in  which  year  they  amounted  to  123  carloads. 

Annual  total  1895-1920  compiled  from  California  Fruit  News;  monthly  data  from  compilations  by  the 
California  Fruit  Distributors. 

Data  for  1921-1927  include  interstate  shipments  from  both  north  and  south  of  Tehachapi  and  are 
from  compilations  by  the  carriers.  They  include  all  refrigerator  car  and  express  shipments  but  do  not 
include  a  very  small  movement  in  box  cars  in  a  few  years.  The  annual  total  for  1921  to  1926  are  for  crop 
years;  they  include  shipments  in  addition  to  those  shown  by  individual  months.  See  table  31  (p.  102) 
for  interstate  shipments  from  north  of  Tehachapi  for  1921-1927. 


Bul.  452 


ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF   THE  PEAR  INDUSTRY 


DO 


from  the  state  during  the  last  twenty  years.  During  the  last  five 
years,  1922-1926,  July  shipments  have  averaged  over  3,100  carloads, 
or  about  2.8  times  the  pre-war  average;  August  shipments,  nearly 
2,700  cars,  about  2.7  times  the  pre-war  average ;  and  June  shipments, 
275  cars,  or  nearly  10  times  this  average.  Thus  the  total  pear  ship- 
ments from  the  state  for  June,  July,  and  August  during  these  five 
years  have  averaged  approximately  2.8  times  the  pre-war  figure,  or 
over  6,000  carloads,  constituting  about  84  per  cent  of  the  total  annual 
interstate  movement  from  California. 


rloni-h/y    Percentage    of  Season's     Total    Pear    Shipments 
from  Ca//forn/o,   /903-/-927' 


1903      1905 


Fig.  15. — In  years  when  California's  pear  crop  is  early  July  shipments  consti- 
tute a  larger  percentage  of  the  season 's  total  than  August  shipments.  Conversely, 
August  shipments  are  larger  than  those  of  July  in  late-maturing  seasons. 

(Data  from  table  13.) 


Shipments  for  the  remainder  of  the  season,  after  August,  have 
amounted  to  between  ten  and  eleven  hundred  cars  in  recent  years, 
or  nearly  2.5  times  the  pre-war  average.  The  September  movement 
has  accounted  for  about  750  carloads,  October  approximately  250,  and 
the  balance  of  the  shipping  season  to  June  first  less  than  50  cars. 

The  most  outstanding  fact  shown  in  figure  15  is  the  inverse  rela- 
tionship between  the  percentages  of  California  pear  shipments  rolling 
in  July  and  in  August.  In  years  when  the  California  pear  crop  is 
early,  shipments  in  July  constitute  a  larger  percentage  of  the  season's 
total  than  those  in  August.  On  the  other  hand,  in  years  in  which 
there  are  very  few  early  shipments,  as  in  1927,  a  considerably  larger 
percentage  of  shipments  to  the  East  roll  in  August  than  in  July. 


56 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


TABLE  14 
Monthly  Carlot  Shipments  of  California  Pears  by  Counties  and  Districts, 

1926 
(Total  of  inter  and  intra-state,  including  carlot  shipments  of  cannery  pears.) 


County  and  district 


June 
cars 


July 
cars 


Aug. 
cars 


Sept. 
cars 


Oct. 
cars 


Nov. 
cars 


Dec. 

cars 


Total 
cars 


Coast  district:  total 

Santa  Clara 

Mendocino 

Sonoma 

Napa 

San  Benito 

Monterey 

Santa  Cruz 

Marin 

Alameda 

San  Luis  Obispo 

Sacramento  Valley:  total... 

Sacramento 

Solano 

Contra  Costa 

Yuba 

Yolo 

San  Joaquin 

Glenn 

Shasta 

Tehama 

Sutter 

Colusa 

Butte 

Southern  California:  total. 

Los  Angeles 

Riverside 

Kern 

Inyo 

Santa  Barbara 

San  Bernardino 

Mountain  district:  total 

Placer 

Eldorado 

Tuolumne 

Other  counties:  total 


715 

83 

2 

45 

2 


State  total. 


State  total— 1926 

1925 

Coast  district— 1926 

1925 

Sacramento  Valley — 1926 

1925 ... 

Southern  California— 1926 

1925 

Mountain  district— 1926 

1925 

Other  counties— 1926 

1925 


7.2 
0.1 


15.4 
0  3 


0  3 


1,386 

533 

211 

258 

210 

19 

18 

1 

20 

89 

27 

3,989 

2,304 

571 

446 

388 

74 

54 

31 

6 

13 

10 


1,776 

379 

1,165 

12 

6 

36 

47 

27 


571 

257 

74 


202 
72 
15 
5 

55 
36 


555 

85 

34 

91 

53 

145 

81 

18 

8 

5 

26 

7 

2 

102 

3 

22 

62 

9 

5 

1 

1,884 

793 

587 

4 

1 


97 

170 

1 


26 


3,1 


239 


Per  cent  of  season's  total 


4,021 

1,364 

1,465 

283 

367 

159 

121 

66 

20 

111 

115 

5,477 

3,109 

688 

487 

556 

242 

146 

66 

18 

20 

44 

89 

12 

175 

57 

23 

79 

10 

5 

1 

2,135 

1,318 

812 

5 

23 


11,811 


49.6 

32.3 

8.0 

2  0 

0.8 

0  1 

43.5 

41  9 

10.7 

2.7 

10 

0  1 

34  4 

44  1 

14 .2 

5  2 

1.8 

0.3 

16  5 

46.9 

26.4 

8.7 

11 

0.4 

72.9 

10.1 

1.4 

0  2 

— 

— 

65.8 

31.8 

1.7 

0.4 

— 

— 

— 

58  3 

18.3 

8.6 

14.8 

— 

— 

37.4 

42.0 

4.8 

15.8 

— 

21.7 

64.8 

12.6 

0  6 

— 

— 

26.0 

65.3 

8.5 

0.2 

— 

— 

95.6 

4  4 

— 

— 

— 

— 

41.9 

54.8 

3  3 

— 

— 

— 

100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 


Source  of  data:  Carlot  shipments  for  1926  from  Hansen,  C.  J.,  and  O.  W.  Holmes.  Marketing  Cali- 
fornia Pears,  1926.  U.  S.  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.  mimeo.  release  p.  10-13.  June,  1927.  Percentages  for  1926  are 
based  on  these  data  and  for  1925  on  similar  data  from  Hansen,  C.  J.,  and  O.  W.  Holmes.  California  Pear 
Deal,  1925.   U.  S.  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.  mimeo.  release  p.  20-23.    1926. 


BUL.  452]  ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF  THE  PEAR  INDUSTRY  57 

In  recent  years  interstate  shipments  in  the  two  months  of  July  and 
August  have  averaged  about  80  per  cent  of  the  annual  total,  July 
shipments  averaging  about  43  per  cent  in  the  last  five  years  and  those 
in  August  approximately  37  per  cent.  The  proportion  of  August 
shipments  has  been  smaller  than  that  of  July  shipments  in  every 
year  from  1919  through  1926.  However,  the  1927  pear  crop  of  the 
state  was  so  late  in  maturing  that  August  shipments  were  again  equal 
to  at  least  half  of  the  shipments  from  the  state,  as  they  were  in  1918. 

The  percentage  of  pears  shipped  from  California  in  July  has  act- 
ually been  somewhat  decreased  by  substantial  shipments  in  June  in 
a  few  recent  years  in  which  an  abnormally  large  percentage  of  the 
crop  matured  very  early.  In  seven  of  the  last  ten  years  the  percentage 
of  June  shipments  from  California  north  of  Tehachapi  has  been  only 
a  fraction  of  one  per  cent.  In  two  of  the  last  four  years,  however, 
shipments  during  this  month  have  averaged  over  5  per  cent  of  the 
state  total,  in  1926  rising  to  8.7  per  cent,  the  highest  percentage  of  the 
California  crop  ever  shipped  in  this  month.  The  frequency  with 
which  a  substantial  proportion  of  the  crop  has  matured  in  June  in 
the  last  five  years  suggests  that  possibly  there  is  an  actual  trend  in 
this  direction. 

The  percentage  of  the  California  shipments  moving  from  the  state 
after  August  has  averaged  about  15  per  cent  of  the  total  in  recent 
years  and  seems  to  have  shown  no  particular  tendency  either  to  in- 
crease or  to  decrease.  The  proportion  shipped  in  September  has 
amounted  to  about  9  per  cent,  that  in  October  to  less  than  4,  and  that 
in  December  to  only  a  little  over  1  per  cent.  In  every  month  from 
January  through  May,  California  has  usually  shipped  a  few  cars  of 
cold-storage  pears  to  eastern  markets  in  recent  years,  as  reference  to 
table  12,  page  50,  discloses.  The  bulk  of  shipments  during  the  winter 
and  spring  months,  however,  originate  in  the  Pacific  Northwest. 

California  Monthly  Shipments  by  Counties  and  Districts. — A 
study  of  table  14  shows  that  in  1926  the  bulk  of  the  pear  shipments 
moving  from  California  in  June  and  July  originated  in  the  Sacra- 
mento Valley  and  adjacent  pear-growing  areas  in  San  Joaquin  and 
Contra  Costa  counties,  while  the  coast  and  mountain  districts  dom- 
inated the  months  of  August  and  September.  The  relative  seasonal 
variation  in  pear  shipments  from  the  state  in  1926,  as  in  1924  and 
1925,  is  probably  somewhat  typical  of  early  shipping  seasons.  (See 
table  13,  page  54,  and  figure  15,  page  55.)  In  later-maturing  seasons 
there  is  a  tendency  for  a  larger  percentage  of  pears  from  the  Sacra- 
mento Valley  to  be  shipped  in  August,  and  a  smaller  percentage  of 
those  from  the  coast  and  mountain  districts.     Practically  all  of  the 


58  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT    STATION 

small  volume  of  pear  shipments  from  southern  California  move  after 
July,  a  larger  percentage  of  the  total  from  this  section  moving  in 
September,  October,  and  November  than  from  any  other  district  in 
California. 

The  chief  counties  which  shipped  a  majority  of  their  crop  by  the 
end  of  July  in  1926,  arranged  according  to  carlots  shipped  up  to 
this  date,  are  Sacramento,  Solano,  Contra  Costa,  Yuba,  Sonoma,  and 
Napa.  A  similar  list  of  important  shipping  counties,  the  majority  of 
shipments  from  which  moved  in  August  or  later  in  1926,  are  Santa 
Clara,  Mendocino,  Lake,  Placer,  and  Eldorado.  The  relative  lateness 
of  shipments  from  these  counties  is  accounted  for  largely  by  climatic 
conditions,  which  are  less  conducive  to  early  maturity  than  are  those 
in  the  hot  interior,  and  also  because  a  smaller  proportion  of  Bartletts 
and  a  correspondingly  larger  proportion  of  fall  and  winter  varieties 
of  pears  are  grown  in  these  coast  and  mountain  counties  than  in  the 
interior  valleys. 

Monthly  Cold-Storage  Movement  of  Pears.41 — Data  on  the  quantity 
of  pears  held  in  cold  storage  in  the  United  States  on  the  first  of  each 
month  are  available  only  since  1923.  These  data  are  exhibited  in  table 
15  and  are  pictured  in  figure  16  for  three  years  separately,  showing 
not  only  the  total  holdings,  but  likewise  the  relative  amounts  of  pears 
stored  in  boxes  and  in  barrels. 

Pears  move  into  cold  storage  in  large  amounts  from  July  to  about 
the  middle  of  October  or  infrequently  up  to  the  first  of  November,  a 
period  of  something  over  three  months,  most  of  the  movement  occur- 
ring in  August  and  September.  The  reports  indicate  that  an  average 
of  probably  1.2  million  bushels  of  pears  a  year  moved  into  cold  storage 


41  Important  technical  problems  involved  in  the  handling,  shipping,  and  cold 
storage  of  Pacific  Coast  pears  are  discussed  in  the  following  publications: 

Overholser,  E.  L.,  and  L.  P.  Latimer.  The  cold  storage  of  pears.  California  Agr. 
Exp  Sta.  Bui.  377:  1-56.     1924. 

Hartman,  H.  Studies  relating  to  the  harvesting  and  storage  of  apples  and  pears. 
Oregon  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  206:  1-32.     1924. 

Hartman,  H.,  J.  K.  Magness,  F.  C.  Eeimer,  and  M.  H.  Haller.  Investigations  on 
the  harvesting  and  handling  of  Bosc  pears  from  the  Kogue  Eiver  Valley. 
Oregon  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  228:1-30.     1927. 

Magness,  J.  R.  The  handling,  shipping,  and  cold  storage  of  Bartlett  pears  in  the 
Pacific  Coast  states.     U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Bui.  1072:  1-16.     1922. 

Magness,  J.  R.  The  relation  of  growing  conditions,  maturity  when  picked,  and 
temperature  to  the  ripening  of  Bartlett  pears.  Oregon  State  Hort.  Soc.  17th 
Annual  Report:  166-169.     1926. 

See  also  the  bibliography  by  Bercaw,  L.  O.     Refrigeration  and  cold  storage. 
U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Library,  Bibliographical  Contribution  10:  1-58   (mimeo.)     1925. 


Bul.  452] 


ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF  THE  PEAR  INDUSTRY 


59 


in  the  three  years  1924—1926,  or  over  5  per  cent  of  national  production 
and  approximately  11  per  cent  of  total  carlot  shipments  during  the 
same  period. 

No  substantial  movement  out  of  cold  storage  begins  until  about  the 
middle  of  October  or  the  first  of  November,  depending  upon  the  exist- 
ing situation  in  regard  to  shipments  in  any  particular  season.  The 
heaviest  movement  of  storage  stock  into  consumption  takes  place  in 


United  Sto-fes    Co /d-  Storage  Ho/dings  of  Pears, 
First-  o-f  Each  Month,  Seasons    I9Z4  -  I9Z6 


— i 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Boxed  Pears   =  Upper 

3  Curves 
Barrelled  Pears  =  Lower_ 

3  Curves 


! 1 1 II U  I  II 


Fig.  16. — Pears  move  into  cold  storage  in  large  amounts  from  July  to  about 
the  middle  of  October.  The  heaviest  outward  movement  takes  place  in  the  months 
of  November  through  February. 

(Data  from  table  15.) 


the  four  months  of  November  through  February,  this  movement 
amounting  to  about  70  per  cent  of  the  total  in  recent  years.  The 
heaviest  withdrawals  occur  in  November  or  December,  varying  some- 
what in  different  years.  Most  of  the  cold-storage  pears  are  exhausted 
by  the  last  of  March,  although  a  few  last  over  until  June. 

Indications  are  that  cold  storage  is  being  used  more  extensively 
than  formerly  as  a  means  of  holding  both  Bartletts  and  late  varieties 
off  the  market  when  it  seems  that  prices  will  probably  be  better  later 
in  the  season.     This  practice  was  noticeable  during  the  1926  season. 


60 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT    STATION 


"Rather  than  ship  their  pears  to  the  markets  [in  1926]  and  take  an 
almost  certain  loss,"  Hansen  and  Holmes  state,  "many  shippers  and 
growers  taxed  their  storage  facilities  to  extremes  in  an  endeavor  to 
spread  the  shipments  over  as  long  a  period  as  possible.  This  probably 
improved  the  situation  to  some  extent  and  especially  proved  a  boon 


Monthly  Price  *-  Quantity  ot  United  States 
r~r&sh  -P&ar  Exports,   Average,    /9ZZ  -  I9Z6 


Fig.  17. — Fresh  pears  are  exported  chiefly  during  the  six  months  of  August 
through  January,  the  peak  coming  in  October.  Prices  generally  rise  rapidly 
during  the  winter  and  spring  months  when  available  supplies  are  small. 

(Data  from  table   16.) 


to  the  holders  of  late  fall  varieties,  for  some  were  sold  during  the  later 
months  at  fairly  attractive  prices.  In  most  sections  of  the  west 
the  larger  growers,  or  packers,  are  equipping  their  establishments 
with  cold-storage  plants.  It  has  been  found,  in  many  instances,  that 
storing  at  point  of  origin  was  as  satisfactory  as  storing  at  terminal 
markets.  This  was  especially  true  where  operators  were  compelled 
to  hold  their  products  awaiting  favorable  marketing  conditions.     It 


Bul.  452] 


ECONOMIC   ASPECTS  OF   THE   PEAR  INDUSTRY 


61 


gave  them  the  advantage  of  making  personal  inspections  as  to  the 
keeping  quality  and  placed  them  in  position  of  more  easily  handling 
their  sales.  However,  in  cases  where  the  quality  deteriorated  rapidly 
it  made  long  shipment  and  successful  marketing  precarious.    Eastern 


TABLE  15 

United  States  Cold-Storage  Holdings  of  Pears  on  First  of  Each  Month, 

Seasons  1923-1926 
(In  thousands  of  bushels,  i.e.,  000  omitted.) 


August  1 

September  1 

October  1 

November  1 

Crop  year 

In 
bbls. 

In 
boxes 

To- 
tal 

In 
bbls. 

In 

boxes 

To- 
tal 

In 

bbls. 

In 

boxes 

Total 

In 

bbls. 

In 
boxes 

Total 

1923-24 

Ill 

36 

345 

99 
148 

408 
425 
551 
719 

526 

519 
461 

896 
818 

674 

192 
309 
219 
276 

249 

501 

489 

832 

1,285 

777 

693 

798 

1,051 

1,561 

1,026 

126 
231 
177 
171 

176 

790 

576 

862 

1,171 

850 

916 

1924-25 

12 
108 
42 

54 

91 
162 
159 

137 

103 
270 
201 
191 

807 

1925-26 

1,039 

1926-27 

1,342 

1,026 

December  1 

January  1 

February  1 

March  1 

Crop  year 

In 
bbls. 

In 

boxes 

To- 
tal 

In 
bbls. 

In 

boxes 

To- 
tal 

In 
bbls. 

In 
boxes 

Total 

In 

bbls. 

In 
boxes 

Total 

1923-24 

93 
132 
186 
123 

134 

606 
468 
679 
834 

647 

699 
600 
865 

957 

780 

69 

87 
87 
78 
80 

389 
301 
490 
569 

437 

458 
388 

577 
647 
518 

42 
63 
57 
51 

53 

218 
182 
381 
360 

285 

260 
245 
438 
411 

339 

21 
27 
39 
30 

29 

134 
149 
177 
215 

169 

155 

1924-25 

176 

1925-26 

216 

1926-27 

245 

198 

April  1 

May  1 

June  1 

July  1 

Crop  year 

In 
bbls. 

In 

boxes 

To- 
tal 

In 
bbls. 

In 
boxes 

To- 
tal 

In 

bbls. 

In 
boxes 

Total 

In 
bbls. 

In 

boxes 

Total 

1923-24 

9 
12 

27 
18 
17 

75 
87 
97 
120 
95 

84 
99 
124 
138 

111 

6 
9 
12 
9 
9 

28 
46 
52 
75 
50 

34 
55 

64 

84 
59 

0 
0 
6 
3 

2 

9 
18 
16 
42 

21 

9 
18 
22 
45 

23 

? 
0 
6 
3 
St 

5 

8 

7 

24 

11 

5? 

1924-25 

8 

1925-26 

13 

1926-27 

27 

Average 

14? 

Source  of  data:    Compiled  from  the  latest  revisions  given  in  Crops  and  Markets  and  its  Monthly 
Supplement. 

storages  were  reported  filled  to  capacity  and  receipts  were  forced 
on  the  markets,  often  encountering  a  glutted  condition.  With  the 
prospects  of  increased  productions  it  is  quite  essential  that  additional 
storage  or  pre-cooling  plants  be  provided."42 

Monthly  Exports  of  Fresh  Pears. — The  average  monthly  move- 
ment of  pears  from  the  United  States  into  foreign  markets  and  the 


42  Hansen,   Carl   J.,   and   O.   W.   Holmes.      Marketing   California   pears,    1926. 
U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.,  pp.  1,  2   (mimeo.).     June,  1927. 


62 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


weighted-average  export  valuation  per  box  of  46  pounds  net  weight 
are  pictured  in  figure  17.  Approximately  95  per  cent  of  our  exports 
move  from  the  United  States  during  the  six  months  from  July  to 
December  inclusive.  The  peak  of  shipments  abroad  occurs  during 
October,  which  has  accounted  for  about  26  per  cent  of  the  export 
movement  of  fresh  pears  in  the  last  five  years.  Over  two-thirds  of 
the  movement  has  occurred  in  the  three  months  of  August,  September, 
and  October.  The  rapid  increase  in  exports  from  July  to  October, 
followed  by  a  less  rapid  decline  is  shown  in  figure  17.  Some  fresh 
pears  are  exported  every  month  in  the  year. 

TABLE  16 

United  States  Monthly  Exports  of  Fresh  Pears,  Quantity  and  Value, 
Average,  Seasons  1922-1926 


Quantity 

Export  valuation 

Month 

Pounds 

Boxes 

Per  cent 
of  total 

Per 
pound 

Per  box 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

73,086 

3,672,693 

10,394,910 

12,187,261 

13,729,324 

9,505,701 

3,810,020 

1,825,317 

752,310 

303,040 

175,836 

77,474 

1,589 

7,984 

225,976 

264,940 

298,464 

206,646 

82,827 

39,681 

16,355 

6,588 

3,823 

1,684 

0.1 
0.7 
19.5 
22.9 
25.8 
17.8 
7.4 
3  4 
1.4 
0  6 
0  3 
0.1 

$0,127 
.057 
.048 
.059 
.044 
.053 
.061 
.077 
.090 
.080 
.126 
.135 

$5.84 

July 

August 

September 

October 

November 

2.62 
2.21 

2.72 
2.02 
2.64 
2.81 

3.54 

February 

4.15 

3.68 

April 

5.79 
6.19 

Seasonal  average 

56,506,972 

1,156,557 

100.0 

$0,050 

$2.32 

Sources  of  data: 

Col.  1. — Approximate  net  weight  of  fresh-pear  exports,  excluding  package.  Compiled  from  Monthly 
Summary  of  Foreign  Commerce. 

Col.  2.— Data  in  col.  1  converted  to  boxes  on  basis  of  46  pounds  net  per  box. 

Col.  4. — Simple  average  of  monthly  weighted-average  export  valuation  per  pound  based  on  data 
from  Monthly  Summary  of  Foreign  Commerce. 

Col.  5.— Data  in  col.  4  converted  to  a  box  basis  at  the  rate  of  46  pounds  net  per  box. 


Monthly  Export  Prices  of  Fresh  Pears. — A  study  of  the  curve  of 
average  monthly  prices  shown  in  figure  17,  page  61,  shows  that 
normally  exported  pears  are  sold  at  the  highest  price  during  the 
month  of  May  and  at  the  lowest  in  October  or  August,  There  seems 
to  be  a  tendency  for  the  September  price  to  rise  slightly  above  the 
August  price.  From  October  to  May,  prices  usually  rise  steadily  with 
an  occasional  slight  temporary  decline. 


BUL.  452]  ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF  THE  PEAR  INDUSTRY  63 


COMPETITION  OF  OTHER   FRUITS  WITH   CALIFORNIA   BARTLETTSi- 

Competition  Keenest  in  July  and  August. — During  July  and 
August,  California  normally  ships  between  80  and  85  per  cent  of  its 
annual  interstate  shipments  of  pears.  Since  only  a  small  proportion 
of  these  shipments  go  into  storage,  the  large  majority  move  into  con- 
sumption in  competition  with  numerous  other  kinds  of  fresh  fruits, 
which  are  shipped  in  abundance  during  the  summer  months.  Figure 
18  shows  for  each  of  these  two  months  the  average  number  of  carloads 
of  each  of  the  chief  kinds  of  fresh-fruit  shipments  originating  in  the 
United  States  in  the  three  years  1924-1926,  and  in  the  period  1919- 
1921.  A  comparison  of  the  total  length  of  the  bars  shows  the  relative 
volume  of  supplies  of  the  chief  fruits  which  California  pears  have 
met  in  the  last  three  years.  A  comparison  of  the  black  portion  of  each 
bar,  which  shows  the  average  shipments  in  the  three  years  1919-1921, 
with  the  cross-hatched  portion  enables  one  to  visualize  the  average 
increase  which  has  taken  place  for  every  fruit  included  except  canta- 
loupes, in  a  period  of  five  years.  Both  pear  and  peach  shipments  as 
shown  in  figure  18  are  somewhat  larger  than  the  amount  actually 
moved  into  fresh  consumption,  for  the  reason  that  some  of  these 
shipments  normally  go  to  canneries.  The  data  as  shown,  however, 
give  one  a  reasonably  accurate  picture  of  the  competing  supply  of 
the  chief  fresh  fruits  moving  to  market  during  July  and  August. 


45  Some  light  on  the  competition  between  the  chief  kinds  of  fruit  produced  in 
the  United  States  may  be  gained  by  a  study  of  other  bulletins  in  this  series  which 
the  College  of  Agriculture  is  issuing  on  major  economic  aspects  of  California's 
more  important  fruits.  Bulletins  of  this  kind  are  now  available  on  peaches,  apri- 
cots, cantaloupes,  grapes,  apples,  and  watermelons,  and  studies  of  other  fruits 
are  under  way.  Competition  of  our  chief  fruits  is  specifically  but  briefly  discussed 
in  the  following: 

Bauchenstein,  E.     Economic  aspects  of  the  cantaloupe  industry.     California  Agr. 
Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  419:  17-19.    1927. 

Economic  aspects  of  the  apple  industry.     California  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui. 

445:27-29.     1927. 
Economic  aspects  of  the  watermelon  industry.     California  Agr.  Exp.  Sta. 


Bui.  449:17-22.     1928. 

Shear,  S.  W.,  and  H.  F.  Gould.     Economic  status  of  the  grape  industry.     Califor- 
nia Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  429:  5,  42,  43,  56,  96.     1927. 

Wellman,  H.  K.     Apricots.     California  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  423:  8,  20,  26.     1927. 

For  the  carlot  movement  of  the  chief  kinds  of  fresh  fruits  in  the  United 
States  during  June  and  July,  1918-1926,  see  Cooper,  M.  K.,  and  J.  W.  Park.  The 
peach  situation  in  the  southern  states.  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.,  Dept.  Cir.  420:16,  17. 
1927. 


64 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


United  States  Fresh-  Fruit  Shipments,  July  and  August-, 
Average,   1919-1921  and   19Z4  -  (9Z6 

Julu 

/QI9    I9Z4                                                   C 

-zi     -z<z 

rh&asonds    o-F  Cars 
>          Z          4          0          8          lO         IZ          14         /(o         /8        ZO        ZZ       Z4 

18.3  Z3.8  Watermelons 
8.5    17.5    Peaches 
7.0     8.4    Cantaloupes 
Z.O     4.3    Pears 
Z.6    3.1   Oranges 

MMHHHB^H     Z^ 

MH  H 

1.5    Z.9  App/es 

I.I      1.7  Mixed  Deciduous 

04     1.6    Grapes 

?        I.I    Mixed  Melons 
0.8     0.9    Plums  ■*  Prunes 
0.3     0.6    Cherries 

■■    !9f9-l9Zt 
■_J   I9Z4-I9Z6 

O.Z     0.3    STraw  berries 

0.1-    0.1+  Grape-fruit 

4Z.8  66.3  Total 

August 

. ,_,    .., 

8.3   15.6  Peaches 

wm+mmz 

i0.4   10.5  Watermelons 

3.6     6.8  Grapes 

W/A 

4.Z    6.4  Pears 

*5.9     5.5  Cantaloupes 

3.3    3.4  Apples 

Z.O    Z.(b  Oranges 

1.3     Z.O  Mixed  Deciduous 

iZ       1 .4  Plums  t- Prunes     |H 

r      0.8  Mixed  Melons 

1 

0.1      O.Z  Cherries 

*0. 1      0.0  Strawberries 

*0.l~     01-  Grapei=ruit 

40.5  55.3  Total 

Fig.  18. — Heavy  pear  shipments  from  California  in  July  and  August  meet  the 
greatest  competition  from  watermelons,  peaches,  cantaloupes,  and  grapes,  ship- 
ments of  which  have  increased  greatly  in  the  last  five  years. 


(*  The   asteris 
from  table   17.) 


indicates    a    slight   decline    in    shipments   of   the    fruits 


marked.      Data 


Bul.  452 


ECONOMIC   ASPECTS  OF   THE   PEAR  INDUSTRY 


65 


In  the  three  years  1924-1926  pears  constituted  less  than  10  per 
cent  of  the  national  shipments  of  all  fruits  during  July  and  August. 
The  total  lengths  of  the  bars  show  that  watermelons,  peaches,  and 
cantaloupes  are  the  most  abundant  mid-summer  fruits.  In  recent 
years  more  than  twice  as  many  carloads  of  both  fresh  peaches  and 
watermelons  as  of  pears  have  been  shipped  during  July  and  August. 
Cantaloupe  shipments  have  also  somewhat  exceeded  those  of  pears 
during  these  two  months.  Pears  likewise  competed  with  an  average 
of  5,000  to  10,000  carloads  each  of  grapes,  apples,  and  oranges,  and 
over  9,000  carloads  of  other  fruits  named  in  figure  18,  chiefly  plums, 
mixed  melons,  cherries,  and  strawberries,  besides  many  berries  such 
as  blackberries,  raspberries,  and  loganberries  for  which  shipments  are 
not  given. 

TABLE  17 

United  States  Carlot  Shipments  of  Chief  Fresh  Fruits,  Average  1919-1921 
and  1924-1926;  July,  August,  July- August,  and  Calendar  Year  Totals 


Kind  of  fruit 


Watermelons 

Peaches 

Cantaloupes 

Pears 

Grapes 

Apples 

Oranges 

Mixed  deciduous ... 
Plums  and  prunes 

Misc.  melons 

Cherries 

Strawberries 

Grapefruit 

Total 


July 


1924-26 
cars 


23,779 

17,516 

8,378 

4, 265 

1.584 

2,898 

3,103 

1,722 

921 

1,063 

595 

346 

122 


66,292 


1919-21 
cars 


18,349 
8,495 
7,032 
1,961 

417 
1,475 
2,640 
1,115 

771 


337 
193 
37 


42,822 


August 


July-August  total 


1924-26 
cars 


10,497 

15,636 

5,499 

6,375 

6.807 

3,405 

2,546 

2,000 

1,425 

831 

238 


37 


55,296 


1919-21 
cars 


10,470 
8,295 
5,869 
4,160 
3,620 
3,319 
2,041 
1,295 
1,206 


135 

275 

36 


40,521 


1924-26 
cars 


34,276 

33,152 

13,877 

10,640 

8,391 

6,303 

5,649 

3,722 

2,346 

1,894 

833 

346 

159 


121,588 


1919-21 
cars 


28,819 
16,790 
12,901 
6,121 
4,037 
4,794 
4,681 
2,409 
1,986 


473 

268 

97 


83,376 


Calendar  year 


1924-26 


Cars 


47,523 

45,825 

28,762 

20,508 

76,456 

119,593 

67,180 

6,401 

5,509 

4,068 

2,497 

14,842 

18,301 


470,370 


Per  cent 

of  1919-21 

average 


119 
159 
122 
157 
210 
124 
121 
153 
118 


177 
170 

181 


HI 


1919-21 
cars 


39,974 
28,812 
23,602 
13,079 
36,491 
96,274 
55,426 
4,111 
4,663 


1  415 

8,723 
10,101 

332,814 


Sources  of  data: 

Data  for  calendar  year  1919:  cherries,  plums  and  prunes  from  Market  Reporter  3:  73.  Jan.  29,  1921, 
mixed  deciduous  (crop  year)  from  Weather,  Crops  and  Markets  3:  43.  Jan.  20,  1923,  grapefruit,  lemons, 
and  oranges  (tangerines  are  not  included  in  1919  data)  from  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Yearbook  1923:  740,  all  other 
fruits  from  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Yearbook  1923:  787-788.  Calendar  years  1920-1921  mixed  deciduous  from 
Weather,  Crops  and  Markets  3:  43.  Jan.  20,  1923,  all  other  fruits  from  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Stat.  Bul.  8:  2. 
1925.  Calendar  years  1924-1925  from  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Stat.  Bul.  19:  2.  Calendar  year  1926  compiled  from 
monthly  summary  of  carlot  shipments  in  Crops  and  Markets,  Monthly  Supplements  during  1926-27, 
and  are  cumulative  totals  for  season  to  end  of  December. 

Monthly  data.  Oranges  and  grapefruit  for  1919-1920  from  Market  Statistics,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Bul. 
982:  231.  1921;  for  1921  compiled  from  issues  of  Weather,  Crops  and  Markets  for  1922.  Mixed  deciduous, 
plums  and  prunes,  and  cherries,  for  1919-1921  compiled  from  Weather,  Crops  and  Markets.  All  other 
fruit  1919-1921  from  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Yearbook  1923:  787-788.  All  fruits  for  1924-1926  compiled  from  issues 
of  Crops  and  Markets  or  its  Monthly  Supplements  for  1925,  1926,  and  1927. 


TABLE  18 

Weekly  United  States  Pear  Shipments  by  Chief  States  and  Groups, 

Seasons  1925-1927 


U.S. 
total 

Washington- 

California 

Oregon 
total 

Northern 

Central 

Southern 

Week  ending 

Total 

district* 

district* 

district* 

Per 

Per 

Per 

Per 

Per 

Cars 

Cars 

cent 

Cars 

cent 

Cars 

cent 

Cars 

cent 

Cars 

cent 

1925 

June  20 

1 

0 

0 

1 

100 

1 

100 

0 

0 

0 

0 

27 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

July   4 

94 

0 

0 

93 

99 

93 

99 

0 

0 

0 

0 

11 

551 

0 

0 

541 

98 

539 

98 

2 

0 

0 

0 

18 

926 

0 

0 

896 

97 

865 

93 

31 

4 

0 

0 

25 

1,139 

0 

0 

1,104 

97 

1,002 

88 

102 

9 

0 

0 

Aug.   1 

1,499 

49 

3 

1,386 

93 

1,103 

74 

283 

19 

0 

0 

8 

1,576 

245 

16 

1,206 

76 

980 

62 

226 

14 

0 

0 

15 

1,572 

517 

33 

828 

52 

692 

44 

123 

8 

13 

0 

22 

1,606 

488 

30 

789 

49 

618 

39 

145 

9 

26 

1 

29 

1,545 

467 

30 

470 

30 

348 

23 

111 

7 

11 

0 

Sept.  5 

1,764 

589 

33 

354 

20 

222 

13 

118 

6 

14 

1 

12 

1,728 

697 

40 

230 

13 

97 

6 

116 

6 

17 

I 

19 

1,621 
1,267 

639 
463 

39 
37 

199 
186 

12 
14 

54 
31 

3 
2 

127 
135 

7 
10 

18 
20 

2 

26 

2 

Oct.    3 

1,062 

348 

33 

120 

11 

15 

1 

104 

10 

1 

0 

10 

978 

280 

29 

80 

8 

8 

1 

72 

7 

0 

0 

17 

706 

204 

29 

56 

8 

4 

1 

50 

7 

2 

0 

24 

414 

113 

27 

38 

9 

1 

0 

34 

8 

3 

1 

31 

198 

57 

29 

18 

9 

1 

0 

14 

7 

3 

2 

Nov.  7 

150 

90 

60 

10 

7 

0 

0 

8 

6 

2 

1 

14 

129 

79 

61 

13 

10 

0 

0 

9 

7 

4 

3 

21 

77 

37 

48 

5 

7 

0 

0 

2 

3 

3 

4 

28 

39 

20 

51 

11 

28 

0 

0 

7 

18 

4 

10 

1986) 

Junel9 

53 

0 

0 

53 

100 

53 

100 

0 

0 

0 

0 

26 

394 

0 

0 

394 

100 

394 

100 

0 

0 

0 

0 

July    3 

883 

0 

0 

883 

100 

877 

99 

6 

1 

0 

0 

10 

1,165 

3 

0 

1,162 

100 

1,100 

94 

62 

6 

0 

0 

17 

1,607 

22 

1 

1,580 

99 

1,216 

76 

364 

23 

0 

0 

24 

1,513 

81 

5 

1,427 

94 

999 

66 

428 

28 

0 

0 

31 

1,480 

297 

20 

1,175 

79 

975 

66 

200 

13 

0 

0 

Aug.   7 

1,849 

624 

34 

1,156 

62 

994 

54 

162 

8 

0 

0 

14 

1,964 

697 

36 

1,083 

55 

952 

49 

128 

6 

3 

0 

21 

1,754 

792 

45 

839 

48 

671 

39 

164 

9 

4 

0 

28 

1,528 

727 

48 

544 

35 

418 

27 

119 

8 

7 

0 

Sept.  4 

1,565 

909 

58 

352 

22 

247 

16 

102 

6 

3 

0 

11 

1,579 

913 

58 

230 

15 

140 

9 

90 

6 

0 

0 

18 

1,711 

765 

45 

170 

10 

68 

4 

97 

6 

5 

0 

25 

1,218 
820 

432 
340 

35 
41 

153 

88 

13 
11 

43 
18 

4 
2 

105 
65 

9 
8 

5 
5 

0 

Oct.    2 

1 

9 

857 

204 

24 

88 

10 

21 

2 

58 

7 

9 

1 

16 

774 

169 

22 

60 

8 

8 

1 

45 

6 

7 

1 

23 

578 
401 

128 
93 

22 
23 

48 
38 

8 
9 

2 
0 

0 
0 

38 
26 

7 
6 

8 
12 

1 

30 

3 

Nov.  6 

247 

97 

39 

33 

13 

0 

0 

26 

10 

7 

3 

13 

168 

77 

46 

31 

18 

0 

0 

20 

12 

11 

6 

20 

117 

70 

60 

18 

15 

0 

0 

11 

9 

7 

6 

27 

81 

56 

69 

9 

11 

0 

0 

9 

11 

0 

0 

1927] 
July    9 

66 

0 

0 

59 

86 

59 

86 

0 

0 

0 

0 

16 

422 

0 

0 

405 

96 

405 

96 

0 

0 

0 

0 

23 

695 

0 

0 

655 

94 

654 

94 

1 

0 

0 

0 

30 

1,029 
1,185 
1,586 

0 

2 

48 

0 
0 
3 

979 
1,109 
1,366 

95 
94 
86 

961 

975 

1,019 

93 
83 
64 

18 
134 

345 

2 
11 

22 

0 
0 
2 

0 

Aug.  6 

0 

13 

0 

20 

1,819 

289 

16 

1,286 

70 

930 

51 

352 

19 

4 

0 

27 

1,747 

524 

30 

941 

54 

729 

42 

210 

12 

2 

0 

Sept.  3 

1,262 

430 

34 

570 

45 

460 

36 

107 

9 

3 

0 

10 

1,325 

502 

38 

542 

41 

447 

34 

93 

7 

2 

0 

17 

1,391 

705 

51 

395 

28 

294 

21 

99 

7 

2 

0 

24 

1,363 

784 

57 

154 

12 

76 

6 

76 

6 

2 

0 

Oct.    1 

1,065 

797 

592 
329 

55 
41 

105 

88 

10 
11 

25 

28 

2 
4 

75 
56 

7 
7 

5 
4 

1 

8 

0 

15 

614 

233 

38 

74 

12 

7 

1 

64 

10 

3 

1 

.    22 

401 

113 

28 

60 

15 

13 

3 

47 

12 

0 

0 

29 

284 

77 

27 

38 

13 

0 

32 

11 

6 

2 

Nov    5 

208 

89 

43 

27 

13 

0 

22 

11 

5 

2 

12    . 

142 

49 

35 

35 

25 

0 

27 

19 

8 

6 

19 

117 

59 

50 

23 

20 

0 

14 

12 

9 

8 

26 

69 

38 

55 

14 

20 

0 

12 

17 

2 

3 

t  Data  for  1926  and  1927  are  preliminary  and  subject  to  revision. 

*  The  California  districts  correspond  to  those  demarcated  on  the  map  of  California  shown  in  figure  5, 
page  30,  except  that  data  for  the  southern  district  in  this  table  include  shipments  from  Imperial  Valley. 

Source  of  data:  Data  compiled  from  1926  and  1927  issues  of  Weekly  Summary  of  Carlot  Shipments  of 
Fruits  and  Vegetables,  a  mimeographed  weekly  release  of  the  U.  S.  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics. 


BUL.  452]  ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF  THE  PEAR  INDUSTRY  67 

From  1920  to  1925,  total  fruit  shipments  during  the  two  summer 
months  of  July  and  August  increased  on  the  average  nearly  50  per 
cent.  Shipments  of  peaches  during  these  two  months,  largely  because 
of  the  tremendous  expansion  of  commercial  production  in  Georgia, 
doubled  from  1920  to  1925,  normal  shipments  for  the  latter  year 
being  more  than  16,000  carloads  greater  than  in  1920.  Summer-grape 
shipments  likewise  doubled  in  these  five  years,  although  increasing 
absolutely  only  about  4,300  carloads.  Pear  shipments  during  July 
and  August  likewise  increased  about  4,500  cars  from  1920  to  1925, 
an  increase  of  75  per  cent. 

Watermelons  and  Peaches  are  Chief  Competitors. — Heavier  ship- 
ments of  watermelons  and  peaches  together  occur  in  July  and  August 
than  of  all  other  fruits  combined,  including  pears.  July  shipments 
of  the  two  have  averaged  nearly  42,000  carloads  in  the  last  three  years, 
representing  approximately  62  per  cent  of  shipments  of  domestic  fresh 
fruits  during  the  month.  Comparable  August  shipments  are  about 
26,100  carloads,  or  about  47  per  cent  of  the  fresh-fruit  shipments  orig- 
inating in  the  United  States  in  this  month. 

Watermelon  shipments  are  much  heavier  in  July  than  in  August, 
whereas  peach  shipments  have  run  about  the  same  for  the  two  months. 
Average  shipments  of  watermelons  for  July  show  a  marked  increase 
since  1920,  but  scarcely  any  in  August.  The  greatest  increase  in  both 
of  these  months  has,  however,  come  about  in  peach  shipments,  which 
almost  doubled  in  the  five  years  from  1920  to  1925. 

July  shipments  of  cantaloupes,  which  are  only  about  half  those 
of  peaches,  take  third  place.  In  August,  however,  they  rank  as  fifth 
only,  being  exceeded  by  pears  and  by  the  rapidly  increasing  shipments 
of  grapes,  which  take  third  place  in  this  month.  Neither  apples  nor 
oranges  are  shipped  in  large  quantities  in  July  and  August,  although 
the  total  of  the  two  is  substantial.  Shipments  of  the  half-dozen  other 
fruits  pictured  in  figure  18  are  individually  small  in  both  July  and 
August,  although  as  a  total  they  are  nearly  as  great  as  pear  shipments 
in  July  and  about  two-thirds  as  great  as  pear  shipments  in  August. 

WEEKLY   VARIATION    IN    SHIPMENTS 

The  rapid  changes  which  take  place  within  a  few  days  in  the 
supply  and  price  of  a  perishable  commodity  like  pears  make  it  neces- 
sary to  study  the  weekly  variation  in  fresh  shipments  during  the 
greater  part  of  the  shipping  season.  Weekly  United  States  shipments 
of  pears  in  1925  and  in  1926  from  the  earliest  movement  in  June  until 
the  last  week  in  November  are  pictured  in  figure  13,  page  52.     A 


68  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

study  of  this  chart  and  of  table  18  shows  the  approximate  amount  of 
competition  which  California  pears  usually  meet  from  shipments  from 
the  Pacific  Northwest  and  from  all  states  but  the  three  on  the  Pacific 
Coast,  at  different  times  during  the  shipping  season.  The  amount 
of  competition  which  California  pears  meet  in  eastern  markets  from 
other  important  commercial  pear-shipping  areas,  of  course,  varies 
appreciably  from  year  to  year,  being  determined  largely  by  the 
relative  earliness  or  lateness  and  hence  the  relative  seasonal  distribu- 
tion of  pears  originating  in  this  state,  in  the  Pacific  Northwest,  and 
in  New  York. 

Movement  from  California  Dominates  the  Early  Market. — Cali- 
fornia pears  normally  dominate  the  eastern  market  for  the  first  five 
or  six  weeks  of  the  shipping  season.  In  both  1925  and  1926  over 
90  per  cent  of  the  fresh-pear  shipments  in  each  of  the  first  five  weeks 
of  the  shipping  season  originated  in  California  and  not  until  the  first 
week  in  August  in  1926,  and  the  second  in  1925,  did  the  state  con- 
tribute less  than  three-fourths  of  the  weekly  movement  of  pears.  As 
supplies  from  California  decrease  after  reaching  a  peak  sometime 
during  the  second  month  of  the  shipping  season,  and  shipments  from 
the  Pacific  northwest  and  then  from  the  eastern  states  increase  in 
number,  the  proportion  which  California  pear  shipments  bear  to  the 
total  rapidly  declines  after  the  early  part  of  August  until  it  amounts 
to  only  about  10  per  cent  during  October. 

Pacific  Northwest  Follows  California. — About  the  time  that  the 
movement  of  California  fresh  pears  reaches  its  peak,  supplies  from 
the  Pacific  Northwest  begin  to  roll  to  market  in  appreciable  and  rapidly 
increasing  quantities.  In  every  week  of  the  1925  and  1926  seasons 
until  the  first  of  October,  the  three  Pacific  Coast  states — California, 
Oregon,  and  Washington — contributed  over  50  per  cent  of  the  weekly 
total  of  pear  shipments  originating  in  the  whole  country.  Shipments 
from  the  two  states,  Oregon  and  Washington,  constituted  from  30 
to  40  per  cent  of  national  pear  shipments  during  the  greater  part  of 
August  and  September,  1925.  In  1926,  however,  a  very  early  ship- 
ping season  for  California,  the  two  northwest  states  accounted  for 
from  35  to  60  per  cent  of  weekly  shipments  throughout  these  two 
month. 

California  Interstate  Shipments  from  North  of  Tehachapi. — In 
recent  years  approximately  99  per  cent  of  the  interstate  shipments  of 
pears  from  California  have  moved  from  the  state  by  the  end  of 
October.  (See  figure  19  and  table  19.)  Shipments  after  the  first 
of  November  seldom  amount  to  1  per  cent  of  the  season's  total,  and 


Bul.  452] 


ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF   THE   PEAR  INDUSTRY 


69 


as  June  shipments  have  averaged  about  4  per  cent  in  the  last  four 
years,  it  is  clear  that  about  95  per  cent  of  the  fresh-pear  shipments 
from  the  state  move  during  the  four  months  from  July  to  October 
inclusive. 


Weekly  Caf/forn/o  interstate  Pear  Sh/pme/rtsy  /9Z5  *-  /926, 
and  Weekly  Bart /eft  Prices  of  A/ew  York  Two  Weeks  L  ofer 


13     ZO   Z7    4-      II     /8   Z5 
Uuns  Uu/u 


I      8     /5     ZZ   Z9     5     IS     19    Z<5    3 
Augus-f-  Sep-fennber- 


/O     17    Z4  31 
Oc1-ober- 


Fig.  19. — The  heaviest  movement  of  pears  from  the  state  occurs  in  July  and 
August.  The  eastern  price  of  California  Bartletts  varies  inversely  with  shipments 
from  California  two  weeks  previously. 

(Data  from  tables   19  and  20.) 


The  week  of  heaviest  shipments  from  the  state  has  been  about  the 
third  week  in  July  in  two  of  the  last  five  years,  namely  in  1923  and 
in  1926.  In  the  other  three  years,  however,  the  peak  came  later, 
occurring  about  the  last  week  of  July  in  1925,  the  first  week  of 
August  in  1926,  and  the  third  week  in  August  in  1927,  an  extremely 


70 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


late  pear  season.  In  both  1925  and  1926,  however,  the  weekly  move- 
ment from  the  middle  of  July  to  the  middle  of  August  was  so  uniform 
that  shipments  in  the  peak  weeks  were  but  little  larger  than  in  the 
other  weeks  falling  in  this  period. 

TABLE  19 
Weekly  California  Pear  Shipments,  Interstate  North  of  Tehachapi. 


1923 
cars 

1924 
cars 

1925 
cars 

1926* 
cars 

1927* 
cars 

Average  1923-26 

Average  1910-14 

Week  ending 

Cars 

Per  cent 

of  season's 

total 

Cars 

Per  cent 

of  season's 

total 

1 
0 
17 
208 
424 
587 
509 
569 
578 
721 
609 
345 
261 
209 
119 
96 
103 
82 
66 
60 
33 
35 
16 
12 
16 

0  0 
0  0 
0  3 

2  5 
6.4 

10  4 
12  3 
11.0 
10.4 
10.7 
9.5 
6.9 
4  7 

3  6 
2  4 
18 
1.8 
13 
10 
0.8 
0  6 
0  5 
0.2 
0.2 
0.1 

0  0 

13 

1 

6 

7 

109 

540 

946 

986 

983 

843 

733 

673 

498 

339 

230 

161 

170 

120 

73 

78 

43 

30 

14 

12 

4 

7 

57 

440 

900 

1,068 

1,157 

791 

800 

1,056 

1,062 

737 

451 

398 

255 

171 

155 

119 

68 

42 

46 

33 

20 

26 

11 

2 

20 

190 

486 

787 

928 

830 

783 

810 

719 

521 

354 

274 

178 

134 

133 

95 

72 

62 

44 

34 

19 

19 

10 

0  0 

20    .. 

2 
107 
513 
953 
1,100 
974 
771 
623 
470 
328 
204 
151 
109 
106 
105 
60 
82 
66 
52 
39 
26 
24 
9 

3 

20 

85 

192 

271 

335 

339 

316 

252 

193 

141 

107 

79 

77 

53 

40 

44 

27 

15 

9 

5 

2 

3 

0  1 

•  27 

3 

6 

136 

494 

676 

849 

904 

1,024 

1,055 

899 

510 

483 

385 

152 

97 

89 

78 

56 

30 

* 

* 

0.8 

July     4 

3  7 

11 

7.4 

18 

10  0 

25 

12  6 

13  0 

8 

12  1 

15 

9  6 

22 

7  4 

29 

5  4 

Sept.    5 

4.5 

12 

3  0 

19 

3  0 

26 

2  0 

Oct.      3 

15 

10 

17 

17 

1.0 

24 

0.6 

31 

0  3 

Nov.     7 

0.2 

14 

0.1 

21 

0.1 

6,874 
6,913 

5,676 
5,716 

7,599 
7,690 

9,870 
9,890 

7,926 
8,100 

7,504 
7,552 

99.4 
100.0 

2,608 
2,608 

100.0 

Grand  total  whole  season... 

100.0 

*  Data  for  1926  and  1927  are  preliminary  and  subject  to  revision.  About  95  cars  were  shipped  from 
the  state  during  November,  1927. 

Source  of  data:  Data  compiled  from  the  California  Fruit  News  from  the  issues  of  the  year  following 
that  for  which  the  data  are  given  except  in  the  case  of  1926  and  1927.  The  exact  dates  by  weeks  shown 
in  the  first  column  correspond  approximately  to  those  for  which  available  weekly  data  for  the  different 
years  are  shown. 


WEEKLY   SALES   OF    PACIFIC    COAST    PEARS    BY    VARIETIES 

Comparison  of  Bartletts  and  Late  Varieties. — Figure  20,44  which 
pictures  the  weekly  sales  of  Pacific  Coast  Bartlett  pears  compared 


44  Figure  20  is  based  on  table  36,  page  107,  ' '  Weekly  Sales  of  Pacific  Coast 
Pears  at  New  York  Delivered-Auctions  by  Chief  Varieties,  1926." 


Bul.  452 


ECONOMIC   ASPECTS  OF   THE  PEAR  INDUSTRY 


71 


with  those  of  late  varieties  on  the  New  York  delivered-auction  market 
in  1926,  gives  some  idea  of  the  amount  of  competition  between  Bart- 
letts  and  other  varieties  of  Pacific  Coast  pears  at  different  times 
during  the  season.  Comparison  of  the  upper  two  sections  of  this 
figure  shows  that  California  Bartletts  dominated  the  market  until 


Weekly   /V<s»iv  York    Auction   *Sa/es   of  Pacific   Coas-f-    Bor-t/e-r+s    and 
Lai-&    Varf&i-ies    of   Ptsors,    1926 


IZ     19     Z6 

\'o\/emt>er 


mm 

10     17    24   31 
December- 


Fig.  20. — In  1926  California  Bartletts  dominated  eastern  pear  markets  until 
about  the  middle  of  September.  By  the  middle  of  October  practically  all  of  the 
pears  from  the  Pacific  Coast  were  late  varieties. 

(Data  from  table  36,  page  107.) 


about  the  middle  of  September,  as  no  large  volume  of  Bartletts  from 
any  other  section  or  of  late  varieties  from  any  section  were  sold  until 
after  this  date.  During  the  next  month,  however,  Bartlett  pear  sales 
rapidly  declined  to  practically  nothing,  until  by  the  middle  of  October 
late  varieties  from  the  Pacific  Coast  constituted  practically  all  the 
sales  of  pears  from  this  section.    Sales  of  late  varieties  in  appreciable 


72  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

quantities  began  about  the  first  week  in  September,  when  they 
amounted  to  about  25,000  boxes  compared  with  over  200,000  boxes 
of  Bartletts  in  the  peak  week  of  sales  of  this  variety  during  the  1926 
season.  In  the  last  week  in  September  60,000  boxes  of  late  varieties 
were  sold  and  from  then  until  nearly  the  middle  of  November  60,000 
to  70,000  boxes  were  sold  each  week,  while  after  the  last  week  in 
September,  Bartlett  sales  became  inconsequential,  ceasing  entirely  by 
the  end  of  October. 

California  Bartletts  Dominate  Until  Middle  of  September. — Study 
of  Figure  20  shows  to  what  an  extent  supplies  of  California  Bartlett 
pears  dominated  the  New  York  delivered-auction  markets  throughout 
the  season  until  the  middle  of  September.  Until  the  second  week  in 
August  practically  no  other  pears  but  California  Bartletts  were  sold 
at  auction.  Sales  of  Pacific  Northwest  Bartletts,  which  began  in 
August,  amounted  to  25,000  boxes,  at  the  most,  in  any  one  week  during 
the  next  five  or  six  weeks,  while  80,000  boxes  or  more  of  California 
Bartletts  were  sold  in  any  one  week  during  this  period  and  in  one 
week  nearly  180,000.  The  largest  sales  of  Pacific  Northwest  Bartletts 
occurred  in  the  last  two  weeks  of  September,  averaging  over  40,000 
boxes  each  week,  in  comparison  with  an  average  of  less  than  15,000 
boxes  of  California  Bartletts,  which  had  almost  ceased  to  move  by 
this  time. 

Total  Weekly  Sales  of  Late  Varieties  by  States,  1926. — The  top 
section  of  figure  20  pictures  the  relative  amounts  of  late  varieties  of 
pears  sold  each  week  on  the  New  York  delivered  auctions  which  orig- 
inated in  the  different  Pacific  Coast  states  in  1926.  The  earliest  sales 
of  the  season,  beginning  in  small  amounts  about  the  first  week  in 
August,  came  from  California.  About  the  first  week  in  September, 
sales  of  late  varieties  from  California  totalled  20,000  boxes  for  the 
first  time  during  the  season  and  did  not  fall  below  this  in  any  week 
during  the  next  two  months,  averaging  between  35,000  and  40,000 
boxes  for  three  weeks  during  this  period. 

Two  or  three  thousand  boxes  of  late  varieties  from  the  Pacific 
Northwest  were  sold  as  early  as  the  first  week  in  September.  Not 
until  the  latter  part  of  this  month,  however,  did  sales  from  this  section 
reach  a  weekly  volume  of  20,000  boxes.  From  this  date  on,  the  pro- 
portion of  sales  from  this  section  compared  with  those  from  California 
increased  rather  consistently,  until  about  the  second  week  in  October 
they  exceeded  those  of  California.  Thereafter  they  accounted  for  a 
large  majority  of  the  total,  the  proportion  from  California  sinking  to 
almost  nothing  by  the  middle  of  November. 


Bul.  452] 


ECONOMIC   ASPECTS  OF   THE  PEAR  INDUSTRY 


73 


Week  it/  New  York  Auction  Sates  of  Late  Varieties  of 
Pacific  Coast  Pears,  by  States,  i9Z6 


Others 


loo. 


C/airgeau                                  |wd 

- 

Winter  Nelis                                  m 

( 1 

- 

€     13    ZO  Z7   3     JO    17  Z4     I      9     15   ZZ  Z9    5    IZ    /9    Z<3    3    /O    17   Z4   3/ 
August  September         October  November  December 


Fig.  21. — In  August  and  September,  Beurre  Hardy  was  the  outstanding  Pacific 
Coast  late  variety  sold  in  New  York  in  1926;  in  October,  Bosc,  Cornice,  Winter 
Nelis,  and  Clairgeau;  in  November  and  December,  Anjou  and  Winter  Nelis. 

(Data   from   table   36,    page    107.) 


74  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT    STATION 

Sales  of  Chief  Late  Varieties  by  Kinds. — An  idea  of  the  approxi- 
mate time  at  which  the  bulk  of  the  chief  varieties  of  late  pears  coming 
from  the  Pacific  Coast  were  sold  in  New  York  in  1926  is  given  by 
figure  21.  The  approximate  proportion  of  each  variety  originating 
in  California,  Oregon,  and  Washington  is  also  shown  separately.  The 
Beurre  Hardy,  practically  all  of  which  originated  in  California,  was 
the  earliest  of  the  late  varieties  to  appear  on  the  market.  Although 
this  variety  was  first  sold  in  appreciable  quantities  in  the  first  week 
in  August,  the  larger  part  of  it  was  sold  in  September,  during  which 
month  sales  averaged  about  10,000  boxes  a  week.  Practically  all  of 
the  Beurre  Hardy  were  off  the  market  by  the  middle  of  November. 

Following  the  Hardy  in  sales  of  any  considerable  volume  early  in 
the  season,  was  Cornice,  the  first  appreciable  sales  of  which  occurred 
in  the  latter  part  of  August,  gradually  increasing  until  an  average 
of  10,000  boxes  a  week  was  sold  during  October  and  most  of  Novem- 
ber. Very  few  Cornice  were  sold  after  the  first  of  December.  Until 
the  middle  of  October  the  majority  of  Cornice  originated  in  California, 
but  thereafter  a  considerable  and  increasing  majority  were  accounted 
for  by  the  Pacific  Northwest. 

Sales  of  Clairgeaus,  almost  all  of  which  are  grown  in  California, 
began  just  about  as  early  in  the  season  as  those  of  Hardy.  Sales 
amounted  to  only  about  1,000  boxes  or  less  per  week  until  the  middle 
of  September.  The  majority  of  sales  were  in  October,  during  which 
month  an  average  of  about  6,000  boxes  a  week  were  sold.  Almost 
no  Clairgeaus  were  sold  after  the  middle  of  November. 

Bosc  sales  in  1926  began  about  the  first  of  September.  The  bulk 
of  the  sales  took  place  during  a  period  of  six  weeks  centering  in 
October.  By  January  1,  practically  all  Boscs  had  been  sold.  About 
90  per  cent  of  the  sales  of  this  variety  come  from  the  Pacific  North- 
west. 

Auction  sales  of  Anjous,  in  1926,  began  in  small  amounts  in  the 
latter  part  of  August  but  did  not  become  of  great  importance  until 
the  middle  of  October.  Thereafter,  however,  until  the  end  of  the 
year,  weekly  sales  averaged  nearly  16,000  boxes,  being  exceeded  only 
by  the  sales  of  one  variety,  Bosc,  up  to  the  middle  of  November.  The 
majority  of  the  Anjou  sales  before  Christmas  originated  in  Oregon, 
although  Washington  supplied  a  considerable  proportion  at  times. 
California  contributed  but  few,  these  few  being  sold  largely  before 
the  middle  of  November.  During  January  to  March,  inclusive,  Cali- 
fornia contributes  practically  no  Anjou  pears  to  the  New  York  market. 
Supplies  from  Oregon  and  Washington,  however,  were,  next  to  those 


BUL.  452]  ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF  THE  PEAR  INDUSTRY  75 

of  Winter  Nelis,  most  plentiful  during  this  period,  amounting  to  about 
one-third  of  the  total  Anjou  offerings  from  the  Pacific  Northwest. 

Winter  Nelis  came  upon  the  market  in  large  quantities  at  about 
the  same  time  as  Anjou.  Sales  averaging  nearly  10,000  boxes  a  week 
or  more  began  about  the  first  of  October  and  continued  to  the  end 
of  the  year  except  for  a  temporary  decrease  in  November.  A  large 
majority  of  the  Winter  Nelis  sales  before  November  were  of  California 
origin.  During  most  of  the  remainder  of  the  year,  however,  Wash- 
ington supplied  a  majority,  Oregon  contributing  only  a  few.  Most 
of  the  sales  of  this  variety  from  Oregon  apparently  occur  after  Christ- 
mas. Washington,  however,  supplies  a  majority  of  the  Winter  Nelis 
sold  during  the  winter  and  spring  months.  Because  of  the  excellent 
keeping  quality  of  Winter  Nelis  a  larger  volume  is  held  in  cold 
storage  and  sold  during  the  period  of  January  through  May  than 
of  any  other  variety  of  pears.  The  limited  available  statistical  evi- 
dence seems  to  indicate  that  perhaps  one-half  of  the  sales  of  this 
variety  in  New  York  City  occur  in  the  late  winter  and  in  the  spring 
months. 

The  sales  of  other  miscellaneous  varieties  occurred  in  relatively 
small  amounts  throughout  the  1926  season  from  the  first  of  August  to 
the  last  of  December.  The  bulk  of  the  sales,  however,  were  made  in 
September  and  October.  Flemish  Beautys  composed  the  bulk  of  the 
sales  from  Washington.  Howells  from  Oregon  were  sold  in  small 
quantities  during  September  and  October.  In  the  late  winter  and 
spring  months  the  miscellaneous  varieties  largely  come  from  Califor- 
nia, a  few  Glout  Morceau  and  P.  Barry  being  included,  the  bulk,  how- 
ever, being  Easter  Beurre,  a  very  late  keeper,  most  of  which  are 
sold  in  the  spring  months. 

RELATION    OF   WEEKLY   SUPPLY  TO    PRICE 

Object  of  Analysis. — A  study  of  the  seasonal  variation  in  fresh- 
pear  prices  from  week  to  week  and  month  to  month  and  of  their 
relation  to  available  market  supplies  should  be  of  practical  value  to 
growers  and  shippers  in  a  number  of  ways.  From  the  long-time 
point  of  view,  such  data,  by  enabling  growers  to  visualize  what  are 
normally  the  best  parts  of  the  season  in  which  to  ship,  give  a  clue 
to  whether  expansion  of  production  of  pears  that  are  usually  avail- 
able for  shipment  at  some  particular  time  of  the  season  is  advisable  at 
present  or  not.  Thus  information  on  seasonal  variation  in  shipments 
and  prices  helps  to  decide  wisely  in  what  producing  sections,  if  any, 
increased   production   seems   advisable,   and   for  what   varieties   the 


76  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

market  outlook  seems  best.  From  the  short-time  point  of  view,  study 
of  this  kind  also  suggests  advisable  changes  in  the  movement  into 
and  out  of  cold  storage  and  when  to  ship  to  eastern  markets,  when  to 
sell  to  the  canneries,  and  when  to  divert  from  one  market  to  another. 
In  fact,  a  clear-cut  picture  of  the  seasonal  variation  in  the  prices  and 
movement  of  pears  and  of  other  competing  fruits  is  indispensable  as 
a  basis  for  decisions  involving  a  better  adjustment  of  production  to 
probable  future  market  demands  and  a  better  adjustment  of  the 
movement  of  the  crop  to  seasonal  changes  in  the  condition  of  supply 
which  affect  current  prices  and  market-distribution  problems. 

Relation  of  Bartlett  Prices  and  California  Shipments. — The  degree 
of  relationship  between  changes  in  the  number  of  cars  of  pears 
shipped  weekly  from  California  during  the  first  ten  weeks  of  the 
1925  and  of  the  1926  shipping  season  and  average  weekly  prices  of 
New  York  delivered-auction  sales  of  California  Bartletts  two  weeks 
later  is  pictured  in  figure  22.  A  comparison  of  the  estimated  prices 
(line  d-d')  with  the  actual  prices  shown  by  the  black  dots  indicates 
that  approximately  87  per  cent  of  the  rise  and  fall  in  the  weekly 
price  of  California  Bartletts  on  New  York  auction  markets  during 
the  twenty  weeks  included  was  accounted  for  by  the  opposite  move- 
ment in  current  arrivals  of  California  pears  available  in  eastern 
markets.45  This  same  inverse  relationship  is  also  pictured  for  1925 
and  for  1926  in  figure  19,  page  69,  which  shows  the  general  tendency, 
during  the  greater  part  of  the  shipping  season,  for  the  price  of 
California  Bartlett  pears  to  fall  as  the  weekly  arrivals  in  eastern 
markets  from  California  increase,  or  to  rise  when  arrivals  are  declin- 
ing. This  relationship  is  fairly  consistent  in  these  two  seasons  until 
about  the  middle  of  September,  but  thereafter  other  factors  than  pros- 
pective California  arrivals  in  the  eastern  markets  seem  to  affect  the 
New  York  price  of  California  Bartletts  to  a  great  extent. 

The  prices  of  California  Bartletts  in  eastern  markets  shows  a  more 
definite  tendency  to  follow  a  fairly  well  defined  seasonal  variation  in 
movement  than  do  the  prices  of  many  other  fresh  fruits.  The  average 
weekly  variation  in  California  Bartlett  prices  on  the  New  York 
delivered-auction  market  for  fifteen  weeks  of  each  season  for  the 
period  1917-1924,  shows  the  average  seasonal  variation  to  be  very 
similar  to  that  pictured  in  figure  19  for  1925  and  for  1926.  On  the 
basis  of  these  facts  Erdman  and  Wellman  conclude  that  California 


45  The  inverse  correlation  between  prices  and  shipments,  as  shown  in  figure  22, 
is  — 0.935.  It  usually  takes  about  one  week  to  move  refrigerated  fruit  by  rail 
from  railroad  concentration  points  in  California  to  Chicago  and  about  twelve  days 
to  New  York  City. 


f?e/of/on  Between  Week/y  New  York  Auctton 
f^/ce  of  Co//forn/o  Borf/etfs  one/  Weekly  P&ar 
Shipments  fro/77  Ca/tfom/a  71vo  Weeks  Ear/fer 
First  /O  Weeks  of  /92Sar?cfof  /S26  Seasons 


S5 


SO 


45 


40 


L, 


£jo 


<$ 

W 


S.O 


AS 


AO 


^cfuo/  /^r>ce  S92  7- 


Acfvo/  Price  /oeSY-zoze-^^ 


ss 


so 


45 


40 


J!S 


J.O 


2.S 


2.0 


AS 


to 


Zoo  400  600  SOO  /OOO  /ZOO  /400 

Week/y  Cd  ft  forma  Interstate  Shipments  /nCor/ooats 


Fig.  22. — The  black  dots  show  the  actual  weekly  New  York  auction  price  of 
California  Bartletts  during  the  first  ten  weeks  of  the  1925  and  of  the  1926  seasons, 
in  relation  to  pear  shipments  from  California  two  weeks  earlier.  The  line  d-d', 
based  upon  these  dots  represents  the  average  relationship  between  these  weekly 
prices  and  previous  shipments.  The  hollow  dots  show  what  actually  happened  to 
prices  in  1927  as  changes  in  shipments  occurred,  and  indicate  how  much  help  the 
line  d-d'  would  have  been  in  predicting  weekly  changes  in  price  on  the  basis  of 
weekly  shipments  from  California. 

(Based  on  tables  19  and  20.) 


78 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


''growers  who  are  able  to  get  the  bulk  of  their  pears  on  the  market 
in  the  first  few  weeks  of  the  season  will  ordinarily  obtain  a  higher 
price  than  if  their  fruit  were  sold  in  the  other  weeks."46 


f^e/of/on  Between  WeeA/y  Afew  MrA  due f/ on  Pnce  and  ifo/ume  of  ^a/e^ 
of  Co/iforn/a  &arf/efts,  f/rsf  /O  lofeeAs  of  /S^Somc/of/SeS  Seasons. 


1 

1 

1 

1 1 

- 

^w     • 

- 

.     o 

Actao/  fr/ce  /3e7,—>* 

a 

Ejf-//f7ofec/  py/ce—3^s. 

o 

\^»    o 

" 

.  • 

t 

sa/  /^r/c 

e  /S2S 

V/926  ~ 

0 

• 

i^^. 

o 

- 

• 

• 

• 

- 

- 

1 

1 ~ 

p=^- — 

1 

,1 ., 

\==^ 

■ - 

i . 

GO  /OO  /20  Z+O 

Thousand*   of  Boxes  f*er   W*e*. 


Fig.  23. — The  black  dots  show  the  actual  weekly  New  York  price  of  California 
Bartletts,  during  the  first  ten  weeks  of  the  1925  and  1926  seasons,  in  relation  to 
the  quantities  sold  on  the  delivered  auction  during  the  same  weeks.  The  line 
d-d',  based  upon  these  dots,  represents  the  average  relationship  between  weekly 
prices  and  sales.  The  hollow  dots  show  what  actually  happened  to  weekly  prices 
in  the  1927  season  (one  of  light  shipments  of  peaches)  as  changes  occurred  in 
the  weekly  quantities  sold,  and  indicate  how  much  help  the  line  d-d'  would  have 
been  in  estimating  the  probable  price  at  which  different  quantities  of  Bartletts 
would  sell  during  the  1927  season. 

(Based  on  data  from  table  20.) 

Relation  of  Bartlett  Prices  and  New  York  Auction  Sales. — Figure 
23  shows  that  the  relationship  between  the  weekly  New  York  delivered- 
auction  price  of  California  Bartletts  and  their  volume  of  sales  during 

46  This  paragraph  is  based  upon  a  figure  and  a  brief  discussion  in :  Erdman, 
H.  E.,  and  H.  R.  Wellman.  Some  economic  problems  involved  in  the  pooling  of 
fruit.     California  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  432:  12,  13,  fig.  1.     1927. 


Bul.  452] 


ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF  THE  PEAR  INDUSTRY 


79 


the  same  period  of  time  shown  in  figure  22  is  even  closer  than  the 
relationship  show  in  the  latter  figure.  According  to  the  data  upon 
which  figure  23  is  based,  nearly  93  per  cent  of  the  changes  in  weekly 
average  prices  of  California  Bartlett  sales  in  New  York  City  can  be 
accounted  for  by  the  quantities  actually  sold.47  The  relation  of  the 
weekly  price  and  volume  of  sales  of  California  Bartletts  in  the  New 
York  delivered-auction  markets  in  1926  which  is  shown  in  figure  20, 
page  71,  also  indicates  the  decisive  tendency  for  prices  to  fall  as 
sales  increase  and  to  rise  as  they  decrease.  This  close  inverse  correla- 
tion can  be  seen  to  exist  through  the  middle  of  September.  After 
that  date,  however,  other  factors  than  the  volume  of  California  Bart- 
lett sales  seem  to  become  the  determining  ones  affecting  their  price. 

TABLE  20 

Weekly  New  York  Delivered-Auction  Sales  of  California  Bartlett  Pears, 

1925-1927 


1925 

1926 

1927 

Week  ending 

Number 
of  boxes 

Price 

Number 
of  boxes 

Price 

Number 
of  boxes 

Price 

June  26 

1,160 
7,630 
87,455 
153,380 
148,090 
163,845 
124,990 
107,895 
122,255 
159,440 
117,255 
77,785 
53,915 
23,870 
5,025 
1,715 

$6.18 
4.94 
3.40 
2.39 
2.20 
2.42 
2.63 
3.17 
2.90 
2  33 

2  65 
2.62 
3.48 
3.19 

3  07 
3  19 

July     3 

10 

6,595 
35,345 
119,004 
114,680 
129,935 
144,520 
132,020 
117,310 
103.580 
87,990 
35,285 
39,120 
6,945 
7,825 

$5.58 
4.62 
3.18 
2.57 
2.47 
2  25 
2  53 

2  75 
3.17 
2.98 
3.85 

3  14 
2  24 
2  54 

17 

5,240 
46,750 
92,365 
111,800 
139,580 
159,170 
175,224 
133,230 
124,560 
99,300 
94,375 
35,155 
12,550 

$5.37 

24 

4.24 

31 

3.65 

Aug.     7 

3.84 

14 

4.05 

21 

3.71 

28 

2.77 

Sept.    4 

2.60 

11 

2.88 

18 

2.84 

25 

3.50 

Oct.      2 

4.00 

9 

4.28 

Source  of  data:  Data  compiled  from  the  daily  issues  of  the  New  York  Daily  Fruit  Reporter.  The 
prices  are  weekly  weighted-average  prices  of  delivered-auction  sales  in  New  York  City.  The  dates  indi- 
cated are  for  weeks  ending  in  the  1925  season.  Those  for  1926  and  1927  vary  slightly  from  these  but  are 
for  the  nearest  corresponding  weeks. 


Tendency  to  Inverse  Correlation  of  Supply  and  Price. — The  rela- 
tionships shown  in  figures  22  and  23  bring  out  the  fact  that  the 
dominant  cause  of  variations  in  California  Bartlett  pear  prices  in 
the  New  York  market  is  changes  in  the  current  weekly  supply  of 
such  pears  during  the  greater  part  of  the  season  when  these  pears 


«  The  inverse  correlation  between  weekly  prices  and  volume  of  sales  as  shown 
in  figure  2'A  is  —  0.964. 


80  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

are  available.  If  no  other  factor  than  the  weekly  supply  of  California 
Bartlett  pears  affected  the  weekly  price,  one  would  expect  all  of  the 
scattered  dots  above  and  below  the  line  of  "estimated  price"  to  be 
located  on  the  curve  itself.  The  fact,  however,  that  the  actual  prices 
do  not  in  most  cases  fall  on  this  curve  indicates  that  other  factors 
than  the  supply  of  California  Bartlett  pears  (at  least  the  measures 
of  supply  used  in  figures  22  and  23)  affected  the  actual  weekly  prices. 
The  extent  to  which  these  other  factors  affected  prices  is  indicated 
by  the  amount  by  which  the  dots  of  actual  prices  scatter  or  diverge 
from  the  curve  of  estimated  price. 

Although  a  number  of  the  factors,  the  effects  of  which  are  not 
measured  by  the  relationships  shown  in  the  curves  of  estimated  prices 
in  the  figures  under  discussion,  are  minor,  in  the  aggregate  they  are 
important,  accounting  as  they  do  for  13  per  cent  of  the  changes  in 
price  not  accounted  for  by  the  curve  in  figure  22  and  for  about  7 
per  cent  of  the  changes  in  price  not  accounted  for  by  the  correspond- 
ing curve  of  estimated  prices  in  figure  23.  Some  of  the  more  out- 
standing of  these  minor  factors  which  cause  changes  in  price  from 
one  season  to  another  or  from  one  week  to  another  are  changes  in 
demand,  such  as  may  result  from  advertising  or  not  advertising,  for 
example,  and  from  variations  in  the  weather,  from  differences  in  the 
time  of  the  season  at  which  sold,  and  from  changes  in  the  available 
supplies  and  prices  of  competing  fruits.  Variations  in  quality,  which 
are  not  always  measurable,  also  affect  prices.  Psychological  factors 
influencing  dealers'  opinions  regarding  demand  and  supply  may  like- 
wise, at  times,  have  an  appreciable  effect  on  prices.48 

One  would  logically  expect  the  price  of  California  Bartletts  to 
be  relatively  higher  during  the  1927  season  than  during  the  1925 
and  1926  seasons  because  of  comparatively  light  supplies  in  1927  of 
certain  other  fruits,  particularly  of  peaches,  which  compete  with 
pears  during  July  and  August.  This  conclusion  is  borne  out  by  the 
fact  that  California  Bartlett  prices,  as  shown  by  the  hollow  dots  in 
figures  22  and  23,  were  markedly  higher  during  most  of  the  1927 
shipping  season,  than  during  the  1925  and  the  1926  seasons,  both  of 
which  were  characterized  by  heavy  shipments  of  fresh  peaches  during 
July  and  August. 


48  A  more  intensive  study  than  it  has  been  possible  to  make  at  this  time  would 
be  necessary  to  measure  the  result  of  changes  in  each  of  these  factors  upon  pear 
prices.  An  excellent  example  of  such  a  study  of  a  perishable  is  that  made  by 
Dr.  Emil  Rauchenstein  on  the  factors  influencing  the  variation  in  the  price  of 
Imperial  Valley  cantaloupes  on  the  New  York  City  market  in  recent  years  in 
Economic  Aspects  of  the  Cantaloupe  Industry.  California  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  419: 
1-45.     1927. 


BUL.  452]  ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF  THE  PEAR  INDUSTRY  81 

Practical  Uses  of  Such  Relationships. — The  curves  of  estimated 
prices  in  figures  22  and  23,  carefully  interpreted  in  the  light  of  their 
limitations,  should  be  useful  in  estimating  what  the  weekly  price 
of  California  Bartlett  pears  at  New  York  is  likely  to  be,  judged  by 
the  supply  that  will  probably  influence  the  market  in  any  given  week. 
Such  a  forecast  would  be  helpful  to  those  confronted  with  the  question 
of  whether  to  accept  an  offer  to  purchase  their  pears  at  a  definite 
price  in  California  or  whether  to  take  the  risk  of  shipping  them  east 
to  be  sold  on  their  own  account  after  arrival.  It  should  also  help  to 
avoid  shipping  too  many  pears  to  the  New  York  market  in  any  one 
week. 

In  using  these  curves  of  estimated  prices  as  a  basis  of  roughly 
forecasting  what  California  Bartlett  pear  prices  are  likely  to  be  in 
some  future  season  it  must  be  remembered  that  the  relationship 
between  weekly  supplies  and  prices  of  California  Bartlett  pears  in 
the  future  may  not  be  as  close  as  in  1925  and  1926,  the  years  upon 
which  these  curves  are  based.  In  fact,  the  relationship  between  weekly 
supplies  and  weekly  prices  is  not  nearly  as  consistent  during  the 
years  1916  to  1924  and  during  1927  as  during  1925  and  1926. 

Forecasting  California  Bartlett  prices  cannot  safely  be  done 
merely  by  the  method  of  statistical  analysis,  the  results  of  which 
are  pictured  in  figures  22  and  23.  Additional  facts,  some  of  which 
cannot  be  measured  statistically,  and  a  trained  judgment  that  can 
ordinarily  be  acquired  only  as  the  result  of  intimate  first-hand 
acquaintance  with  the  business  are  likewise  essential.  The  degree  of 
relationship  between  weekly  prices  and  the  two  separate  measures 
of  supply  shown  by  the  statistical  analysis  which  has  been  employed 
herein,  should,  however,  be  of  considerable  help  in  price  forecasting 
and  in  suggesting  market  adjustments,  if  intelligently  used  by  those 
familiar  with  the  problems  of,  and  the  more  pertinent  current  facts 
involved  in,  the  profitable  marketing  of  California  Bartlett  pears. 

How  to  Use  Figure  22  in  Forecasting  Prices. — To  illustrate  how 
one  can  use  the  curve  in  figure  22,  let  us  assume  that  600  carloads 
have  rolled  in  the  week  just  passed  and  that  we  wish  to  know  what 
the  New  York  price  will  probably  be  two  weeks  hence.  Locate  600 
on  the  horizontal  scale  at  the  bottom  of  the  figure  and  follow  the 
vertical  line  to  the  point  where  it  cuts  the  curve  of  estimated  price. 
Then  follow  the  horizontal  line  from  this  point  to  the  point  where  it 
cuts  the  left-hand  vertical  scale  of  prices  in  dollars  per  box.  It  will 
be  found  that,  judging  from  what  happened  in  1925  and  1926,  when 
600  carloads  of  pears  are  shipped  from  California  in  a  week,  the 
price  two  weeks  later  will  probably  be  in  the  neighborhood  of  $3.20. 


82 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


lO  OO  fl 


"0 

Per 

cent 
of 

U.S. 
total 

|      O    CO    t—    ©     CM    00    Tf 

n  to  m   s  co  h  c 

U}    H     H    00 

CM    if 

CO     1-H 

© 

H^M^OOiflOCNtH 

^ 

o  oo         oo 

CM 

-Hr^OSC^r^OifcOO 

B)WO)OONN<OOiO 

1^    CO 

OS 

o> 

-    IC 
00    «»             «© 

to 

oo"  co   ic    »v   os"  os"  CO   CO   "0 

OS 

c3 

HMNNMOHNiO 

OS 

O 

N    (O    ifl    93    N                      *-4 

oo 

00 

<m"                     ©i 

Co" 

o 

CM 

CO 

S3  d<~«>3 

a  h  cd   m  rt 
id  n  «   *  n 

UO     i-H     ^      OO 

00 

© 
© 

itl    OO    ^    »5    O 

<m   io   co   -*■  os 

^ 

^. 

oo  co         r^ 

OS 

OS 

©» 

1^   1- 

CO 

0) 

CO 

o3 
O 

CO     CO     H      -+Ttl 

OS 

OS 

OS 

-    l/i             CO 

CO    O    N    *    N 

iN." 

o>   w          «» 

-H    ©    00    O    »0 

id 

00 

O    0O    CM     SO 

5 

CO 

-«"                     >-,* 

^ 

os" 
9» 

o  o  m  n  »  to 

N    M    N    "5     <*    6 

CO     H     H     « 

■*    CO 
t-i    © 

H    CM    lO     Oo    O0    CO 

lO    t~- 

-* 

CO    CO            us 

OS 

09 

0> 
CO 

03 

CJ5     h     ^      «<f-    CO     CO 

O      ^H 

o 

N    i(l    N    ^-   <H    N 

00    o 

©* 

CO 

-    CO                if 

©    OS    lO     *0    CO    CO 

m  if 

ITS 

00    89             «c. 

oo   >o   -*   oo   »o 

CO 

CO 

o 

N    rt     H    Ci 

«o 

OS 

P^S  °P° 

lOOHloONNOIN 

H00000000oii«NCO 
«5                      CO 

© 

Moon^Nootico 

© 

CO     C" 

3 

OS 

CNNM»10OHC»NH 

ojoor^'o'— icoor^-"*1 

co    C 

co 

co 

OS 

0) 

-  1--. 

CO 

CO 

OS    OS    ^     -<*-   ^h     lO     lO     OS    *C 

CN    t»             «& 

o3 

•*ff^CO©r^OO©CO<M 

«( 

o 

o 

Ortl-IGO^H^H^H                    ^H 

© 

CM 

«*" 

-* 

&  d«~«i3 
Ph  8  °P.S 

•«f-*fOS<v'~05|-»'*ft^CO 

COcNi-ii^00^<»O©CM 
CO                      Co             ^H 

© 
© 

ocooo-**ooniflN 

CO 

§  5 

If 

OS 

05TjlrtH5CNO)-<05U5 
0)U50002Ni)lOinOO 

GO 

Oi 

t~ 

t^ 

-    CO 

SI 

03 

O 

oooineiNBiOMH 

co  e« 

COCMCM<3<}©t^cO             CO 

*n 

t^                              CO      -H      H 

®i 

00 

^* 

8 

fe-s^a;3 

aOONOJCNCOXCON 

© 

OS 

Ph  g  °p  o 

NHN^OOOCOHH 
CO                      *»             rH 

©' 
© 

o 

oiHcocotsctcooa 

if     CM 

CM 

OS 

NO»nN*OhO 

OO 

r*    lO 

OOCMCOC^OOOCMOO 

OS 

CM 

-    CM 

CM 

3 

lOMCOIJOlNOOlN 

oo" 

co  ©a 

o* 

Ol    H    H     ^    K5    N    lO 

C* 

CO 

o 

■*f                «s 

l> 

oo 

feta-cr^ 

lO 

oo  ei  it)  o  w  it)  4* 

© 

o 

Ph  8  °P3 

CO 
CO 

H    CO    *    CO    W    d    * 
Co             ^H 

© 

t^ 

-H     00     CO     i-l     OS     CO     1*1 

^. 

»o    CO 

CO 

OS 

IO 

O    t)    ■*    CO    CO    N    Ol 

«Q 

OO    if 

N    95    CO    CN    CO    1C    * 

o 

CO 

03 

-    CM 

OS 

CO*    "d"   X    **   OO    ■*     OS 

cm   e« 

&* 

OS 

i-H      i-s      ITS      Tf      CO                  CO 

OS 

o 

us 

CO             i-l 

OS 

CM* 

as 

OS 

S"S«*-ai3 
Ph  8  °p  o 

3 

i-t  oo  ^f  as  »o  co  oo 

i— I     >0    00    CO    CO    ©    t^ 

Co                1-H 

© 

©' 

© 

oo 

N     «S    X    O)    CO    CJ    N 

o 

^    lO 

o 

oo 

co  o   m  I*  rt  if  oo 

•o 

o   oo 

«3 

o> 

OS 

co_ 

CM 

-    CM 

S3 

i 

t^ 

00     Co     if     CO    t^    if    Q 

O    CO    O     N             CO 

oo" 

oo   e© 

os 

© 

00 

■*f 

us            >-l 

<^ 

•^ 

CM 

w» 

a 

3 

0) 

_o 

a 

o 

o 

CO 

oi 

0) 

73       : 
CD 

en    cs 

c,      u 

Q 

CO 

O 
V 

a 

DQ 

9 

'a 

o 

- 

c 
'£ 

a 

8 

a 
o 
§ 

0 

X 

■g  £ 

fc  55 

T3 

a 

03 

b 

a 

Sa- 
ck) 

e 

0) 

if 

a 
.2 

is 

o 

c 

< 

0 

1 

'5 

p 

I 

3 

0 

oT 

> 

3 

« 

Cv 

ft 

0> 

s 

> 

"2  « 

"""  co 

oj 


5  rt.S^8 
ja  o    T3 

^-gco-'? 
•  COS'S 

8*2  • 

CO   H 

c3  c3 

u     •  5"c3c3s 

§°>>cii 

03  d  «  a,  § 

^  o  o  oj 

.So*h  > 
<n  0)<M  «■„ 

-^<«^i  d  a 

>,  XCM    >    V 

^-2  O  «3 


§13 -SE^ 

#>   03   a)        -m 

'm ©3  «  >> 

o<  a)!: SI  S 

W«SEK 

d^«^ 
—  ©  o*» 

•^    o3^'S 


N 


l-  o 

S  ft 

|i 

d  x 
c3  d 


Qlg 


*r  c3  J3  05  •" 

8  as  3  3:2 

0)2   U   »  ti 

|JS  11 

h  g  d  oj  a, 

J5  OS    »    OJ  .-^ 

"gus  8  a  x 

cc!  os  u  o  • T3 

J-s-g  S'-S 

2  8  d  |S 
•s3S8g 

e  u2t3^ 

"111! 

-cJ-Sgosal 
93  >  G   0) 


BUL.  4.12]  ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF  THE  PEAR  INDUSTRY  83 


PRODUCTION    OF    CANNING    PEARS 

Pacific  Coast  Dominates  the  Canning-Pear  Industry. — Reference 
to  figure  24  and  to  table  21  shows  the  outstanding  importance  of  the 
canned-pear  pack  of  the  Pacific  Coast  as  compared  with  that  of  the 
rest  of  the  United  States.  In  the  last  few  years  the  three  states  of 
California,  Washington,  and  Oregon  have  produced  on  an  average 
about  90  per  cent  of  the  national  output  of  canned  pears.  New  York, 
the  only  other  state  the  output  of  which  is  large  enough  to  mention, 
has  packed  about  4  or  5  per  cent  of  the  canned  pears  in  recent  year.49 
California  has  packed  nearly  60  per  cent,  Oregon  slightly  less  than 
15  per  cent,  and  Washington  slightly  more  than  15  per  cent. 


Unii-ed   States   Canned  -  Paan  Pack   by  Chief  Statss,  /9Z5. 

. nillions      oi?    Coses 

1     O / Z 3 


United  States  3.88 
Cali-for-nia  Z.  ZZ 
Washingi-on  O.S3 
Oregon  0.53 

/Veuv/  Yor-k  OZ4 
Others  OZ(5 


r 


Fig.  24. — The  Pacific  Coast  produces  about  90  per  cent  of  the  national  canned  - 
pear  pack,  California  alone  contributing  nearly  60  per  cent  of  the  total. 
(Data  from  table  21.) 

Proportion  of  Pear  Crop  Canned. — There  has  been  not  only  a  very 
great  increase  in  tonnage  of  pears  canned  on  the  Pacific  Coast  during 
the  last  fifteen  or  twenty  years,  but  there  has  likewise  been  a  note- 
worthy increase  in  the  proportion  of  the  total  crop  utilized  for  can- 
ning in  this  section.  Computations  based  on  tables  21  and  30  (pp.  82 
and  101)  indicate  that  about  8  per  cent  of  the  total  United  States  pear 
crop  was  canned  in  pre-war  days,  whereas  approximately  15  per  cent 
has  been  so  utilized  in  the  last  three  or  four  years.  This  approximate 
doubling  of  the  proportion  of  the  national  crop  canned  is  almost 
entirely  due  to  the  fact  that  the  pear-canning  industry  on  the  Pacific 
Coast  has  developed  proportionately  much  faster  than  the  production 
of  this  section  has  grown.  An  average  of  perhaps  15  per  cent  of 
the  coast  crop  was  canned  in  1909  and  1914.  California  dominated 
this  average,  however,  with  22  per  cent  of  the  crop  canned,  while 

49  This  statement  regarding  the  New  York  canned-pear  pack  is  based  on 
mimeographed  statistics  of  the  pack  issued  by  the  Association  of  New  York  State 
Canners,  and  also  the  Federal  Census  data  shown  in  table  21. 


84 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


only  3  or  4  per  cent  of  the  crop  in  Washington  and  in  Oregon  was 
canned.  An  average  for  the  years  1923  and  1925  shows  that  about 
22  per  cent  of  the  pear  crop  of  the  Pacific  Coast  has  been  canned 
in  recent  years.  Washington  utilized  16  per  cent  of  her  crop  in 
this  manner,  California  25  per  cent,  and  Oregon  31  per  cent. 


TABLE  22 

United  States  Exports  of  Canned  Pears,  Fiscal  Years  Beginning  July  1, 

1919-1926 


Quantity  exported 

Value  of  exports 

U.  S.  pack 

Year 

Tons 

Thou- 
sands 

of 
cases 

Per 
cent  of 

U.S. 
pack 

Per  cent 
of  U.S. 
produc- 
tion 

Price 

Purchasing  power 

Thou- 
sands 

of 
cases 

July  1 

Total 
thou- 
sands of 
dollars 

Per  case 
dollars 

Total 
thou- 
sands of 
dollars 

Per  case 
dollars 

Tons 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

1919.    . 

2,620 

1,134 

1920.    . 

3,851 

2,059 

1921 

4,254 

2,934 

1922...-. 

24,679 

1,097 

44 

5  0 

6,105 

5.57 

3,839 

3.50 

2,500 

65,789 

1923 

19,215 

854 

47 

4  5 

4,144 

4.85 

2,708 

3.17 

1,818 

47,842 

1924 

26,925 

1,197 

53 

6  0 

6,446 

5.39 

4,080 

3.41 

2,240 

58,948 

1925 

37,938 

1,686 

47 

7.6 

9,015 

5.35 

5,984 

3.36 

3,593 

94,553 

1926 

33,052 

1,469 

44 

5  4 

6,654 

4  53 

4,436 

3.02 

3,300 

86,842 

Average  1922-26.. 

28,362 

1,261 

47 

5.7 

6,473 

5.13 

4,209 

3.34 

2,690 

70,795 

Sources  of  data: 

Col.  2. — Net  pounds  exported  exclusive  of  package  and  tin.  Compiled  from  Monthly  Summary  of 
Foreign  Commerce.   Quantities  of  canned-pear  exports  are  not  available  before  1922. 

Col.  3. — Pounds  converted  to  approximate  number  of  cases  by  dividing  by  45. 

Col.  4. — Based  on  data  in  table  21,  page  82. 

Col.  5— Based  on  data  in  table  30,  p.  101. 

Col.  6.— Export  valuation  compiled  from  Monthly  Summary  of  Foreign  Commerce. 

Col.  7. — Average  value  per  case  computed  by  dividing  items  in  col.  6  by  items  for  corresponding  year 
fn  col.  3. 

Col.  8.— Dollars  of  current  value  in  col.  6  converted  to  approximate  purchasing  power  in  terms  of 
dollars  of  average  value  for  the  five  years  1910-1914,  by  dividing  items  in  col.  6  by  the  U.  S.  Bureau  of 
Labor  Statistics  all-commodity  wholesale-price  index  for  the  United  States  and  multiplying  by  100. 
(See  col.  4,  table  9,  page  47.) 

Col.  9. — Average  purchasing  power  per  case  computed  by  dividing  items  in  col.  8  by  items  for  cor- 
responding years  in  col.  3. 

Col.  10.— Data  for  crop  years  1923  and  1925  from  table  21,  page  82;  for  the  other  years  estimated 
approximately  on  the  basis  of  reports  of  canners'  associations  covering  California,  Oregon,  Washington, 
and  New  York. 

Col.  11.— Cases  in  col.  10  converted  to  approximate  fresh  tonnage  utilized  by  dividing  items  in  col.  10 
by  40. 


Rapid  Increase  in  National  Canned-Pear  Pack. — Figure  25  pic- 
tures the  rapid  increase  in  the  output  of  canned  pears  which  has 
occurred  in  the  United  States  in  the  last  two  decades  and  enables 
one  to  compare  this  increase  with  the  even  more  rapid  upward  trend 
in  the  output  of  several  other  important  competing  canned  fruits. 


BUL.  452 J  ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF  THE  PEAR  INDUSTRY 


85 


4-0 


30 


U.S.  Canned- Fruf-f-  Pack,    /na/uding   Hawaiian 
Canned  P/'neappleSj,    Census    Years  1899  fo  I9Z5 


■zo 


to 

9 

i r 


g  3 
■9 


— 1 — 1 — 1 — 1 — 

— i — i — i — i — 

— i — 

— i — 

— i — 

/ 

\ 
\ 

/ 
/ 

/ 

Al 

'    Frurhs>* 

> 

/         / 

\ 

/ 

• 

/ 

i 

A 

/ 

f                           A 
/ 

/ 

^^' 

^_  r — 

^^ 

P&cjche 
Apf~/coi 
P/n&ap/L 

s 

/ 

i 
/ 

/     \ 

P/'neappi 
,Peors 

¥ 

/ 

V 

/    ^^ 

iyT 

_ i — i i—i  .  j 

,  1  .1.    i.  ..J.... 

/ 

/l     1     i     1 

1     I     1      1 

i 

" 

" 

i 

40 


30 


zo 


1899 


1904- 


1909 


1914- 


J9I9    Zl       Z3     Z5     Z7 


Fig. 


-The  United  States  canned-pear  pack  has  tripled  since  pre-war  days 


and  the  pack  of  peaches  and  pineapples  has  increased  even  more  rapidly. 
(Data  from  table  23.) 


For  ease  of  comparison  the  relative  increases  in  the  canned  pack  of 
each  of  the  chief  fruits  are  shown  in  table  23  as  percentages  of  the 
average  for  the  two  years  1909  and  1914.  Reference  to  these  data 
and  to  figure  25  brings  out  the  fact  that  the  output  of  canned  pears 
in  this  country  in  1923  and  1925  averaged  nearly  three  times  that 
for  the  pre-war  years  1909  and  1914.  The  canned-peach  output 
increased  somewhat  more  rapidly  than  pears,  while  that  of  Hawaiian 
pineapple  multiplied  by  five.  In  the  same  period  the  canned  pack  of 
apricots  and  of  all  fruits  other  than  peaches,  pears,  and  pineapples 
(chiefly  apples,  berries,  and  plums)  increased  more  slowly  than  that 
of  pears. 


86 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


TABLE  23 

United  States  Canned-Fruit  Pack  for  Census  Years  from  1899  to  1925,  by 
Chief  Kinds  of  Fruit,  Including  Hawaiian  Canned  Pineapples 


Year 

Total 

Total  of 
peaches, 

pears,  apri- 
cots, and 

pineapples 

Total  of 
peaches, 
apricots, 

and 
pineapples 

Pears 

Peaches 

Apricots 

Pine- 
apples 

All  others 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

Cases 


1904 

1909 

1914 

1919 

1921 

1923 

1925 

Averages: 
1909  and  1914 
1923  and  1925 


5,107,714 
5,315,579 
6,786,403 
12,959,624 
26,279,047 
17,771,795 
26,146,920 
34,104,114 

9,873,018 

30,125,517 


3,033,937 
3,035,935 
3,624,609 
8,569,085 
18,740,209 
12,901,777 
16,314,663 
24,161,789 

6,096,851 
20,238,226 


2,265,287 

2,133,971 

2,895,625 

7,354,451 

16,718,599 

11,736,573 

14,496,739 

20,568,410 

6,125,044 

17,532,574 


768,650 
901,964 
728,984 
1,214,634 
2,021,610 
1,165,204 
1,817,924 
3,593,379 

971,807 
2,705,652 


1,656,614 
1,491,463 
1,677,024 
3,895,236 
7,706,855 
5,417,213 
7,039,334 
9,898,740 

2,786,131 
8,469,037 


607,673 
617,008 
720,301 
1,202,225 
3,939,768 
1,056,857 
1,561,658 
1,941,090 

961,263 
1,751,374 


1,000 
25,500 

498,300 
2,257,000 
5,071,976 
5,262,503 

5,895,747 
8,728,580 

1,377,650 
7,312,164 


,073,777 
279,644 
161,794 
390,539 
538,838 
870,018 
832,257 
942,325 


3,776,167 
9,887,291 


Per  cent  of  total 


1899 

100 

59.4 

44.3 

15.1 

32.4 

11.9 

0.0 

40  6 

1904 

100 

57.0 

40.1 

17.0 

28.0 

11.6 

0.5 

42.9 

1909 

100 

53.4 

42.7 

10.7 

24.7 

10.6 

7.4 

46.6 

1914 

100 

66.1 

67.0 

11.1 

35  5 

10.9 

20.6 

33.9 

1919 

100 

71.3 

63.6 

7.7 

29.3 

15.0 

19.3 

28.7 

1921 

100 

72.6 

66  0 

6.6 

30.5 

5.9 

29.6 

27.4 

1923 

100 

62.4 

55.4 

7  0 

26.9 

6.0 

22.5 

37.6 

1925 

100 

70.8 

60  3 

10.5 

29.0 

5  7 

25.6 

29.2 

Averages: 

1910  and  1914 

100 

61.6 

51.8 

9.8 

28.2 

9.7 

13.9 

38. 4 

1923  and  1925 

100 

67.2 

68.2 

9.0 

28.1 

5.8 

24.3 

32.8 

Per  cent  of  1909  and  1914  average  as  100 


1899 

52 

1904 

54 

1909 

69 

1914 

131 

1919 

266 

1921 

180 

1923 

265 

1925 

346 

Averages: 

1910  and  1914 

100 

1923  and  1925 

315 

50 

50 
59 
141 
307 
212 
268 
396 

too 

332 


44 

42 
51 
143 

326 

229 
282 
400 

100 

342 


79 
93 
75 
125 
208 
120 
187 
370 

100 
278 


60 
54 
60 
140 
276 
195 
253 
355 

100 
304 


63 

64 
75 
125 
411 
110 
163 
202 

100 
183 


2 
36 
164 
368 
382 
428 
634 

100 
530 


55 


116 
200 
129 
261 
263 

100 
262 


Data  on  the  number  of  cases  of  all  fruits  but  Hawaiian  pineapples  are  compiled  from  federal  censuses 
of  manufactures.  The  data  on  the  Hawaiian  canned-pineapple  pack  for  every  year  but  1899  are  from 
the  Cal-Pac  Annual  1926:  9  (published  by  the  California  Packing  Corporation  at  San  Francisco).  The 
1899  figure  is  an  assumed  figure  based  on  an  estimate  of  the  Hawaiian  canned-pineapple  pack  for  1900 
of  about  1,200  cases  according  to  J.  D.  Dole  in  the  California  Fruit  Grower  Annual  Statistical  Review, 
p.  79.   Dec.  30,  1911. 

The  pack  as  given  by  the  census  in  standard  cases  of  24  No.  3  cans  for  all  years  through  1914  and  the 
equivalent  of  24  No.  2\  cans  beginning  with  the  1919  census  has  been  converted  to  the  equivalent  of  24 
No.  25  cans  previous  to  1919  by  multiplying  by  1.143. 


BuL.  4f>2]  ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF   THE  PEAR  INDUSTRY  87 

Canned  peaches,  pears,  pineapples,  and  apricots  probably  compete 
more  directly  and  more  keenly  with  one  another  than  they  do  with 
other  canned  fruits  such  as  berries,  apples,  plums,  and  cherries.  For 
this  reason  the  increase  in  the  canned-pear  pack  in  the  past  twenty- 
five  or  thirty  years  is  compared  with  that  of  the  four  as  a  group  and 
with  all  of  the  four  but  pears  themselves  in  figure  25.  The  rapid 
increase  in  the  output  of  Hawaiian  canned  pineapples  is  largely 
responsible  for  the  fact  that  the  average  canned  pack  of  the  four 
fruits — peaches,  pears,  apricots,  and  pineapples — for  1923  and  1925 
was  about  3.3  times  the  1909  and  1914  average,  rising  from  about 
62  per  cent  of  the  total  canned-fruit  pack  of  the  country  to  about 
67  per  cent.  By  leaving  pears  out  of  this  group  we  find  that  the 
United  States  canned  pack  of  peaches,  pineapples,  and  apricots  as  a 
whole  is  about  3.4  times  the  pre-war  average  and  now  accounts  for 
about  58  per  cent  of  all  canned  fruits,  compared  with  about  52  per 
cent  before  the  war. 

Trend  of  the  California  and  Northwest  Pack. — The  California 
pack  of  over  two  million  cases  of  canned  pears  in  each  of  the  two  years 
1925  and  1926  is  shown  in  table  23  to  be  almost  three  times  the  pre- 
war output.  The  data  in  this  table  and  other  available  information50 
indicate  that  the  canned-pear  pack  of  the  Pacific  northwest  averaged 
about  1*4  million  cases  in  the  two  years  1925  and  1926.  Compared 
with  an  average  of  about  41,000  cases  for  the  years  1909  and  1914, 
the  present  pack  of  these  two  states,  Washington  and  Oregon,  is 
nearly  30  times  greater  than  before  the  war,  showing  that,  relatively, 
the  output  of  canned  pears  packed  in  the  Pacific  Northwest  has 
increased  very  much  more  rapidly  than  in  California. 

This  rapid  increase  is  due  to  the  fact  that  the  canning-pear 
industry  of  the  Northwest  was  in  its  infancy  just  before  the  war, 
producing  less  than  five  per  cent  of  the  national  output  of  canned 
pears,  and  hence  its  increase  of  nearly  a  million  cases  has  meant  a 
very  great  proportional  increase.  On  the  other  hand  the  California 
fruit-canning  industry  was  well  developed  by  1900,  averaging  from 
then  to  1914  at  least  a  half-million  cases  of  canned  pears  a  year  (see 
figure  26),  or  about  the  quantity  packed  in  either  Washington  or 
Oregon  at  the  present  time.  The  relative  increase  in  the  canned-pear 
pack  of  the  Northwest  since  pre-war  days  as  compared  with  California 
can  likewise  be  illustrated  by  the  fact  that  over  65  per  cent  of  the 
average  pack  of  the  United  States  for  1909  and  1914  was  canned  in 


50  Data  on  the  canned  fruit  and  vegetable  pack  of  Oregon,  Washington,  and 
Idaho  separately  by  kinds  of  fruit  and  vegetables  are  available  for  the  years 
1919  to  date,  and  are  now  compiled  annually  by  the  Northwest  Canners'  Associa- 
tion, Board  of  Trade  Building,  Portland,  Oregon. 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


California  and  less  than  5  per  cent  in  the  Pacific  Northwest,  whereas 
in  1923  and  1925  an  average  of  about  57  per  cent  came  from  Califor- 
nia and  30  per  cent  from  the  Northwest. 


Commercial    Output  ot~  Cd/rfbrn/a  Pears 
by    Chief   Uses,    1905  ~  I9Z6 


/9/5 


Fig.  26. — The  commercial  output  of  pears  in  California  has  increased  rapidly 
in  the  last  twenty  years.  Fresh  shipments  out  of  the  state  have  increased  slightly 
faster  than  the  tonnage  utilized  in  canning  and  drying  and  as  a  result  the  pro- 
portion canned  and  dried  is  smaller  than  before  the  war.  In  the  last  three  years 
f>8  per  cent  of  the  commercial  output  of  the  state  has  been  shipped  east,  about 
30  per  cent  canned,  and  12  per  cent  dried. 

(Data  from  table  31,  page  102.) 


Bul.  452 


ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF   THE  PEAR  INDUSTRY 


89 


PRICE    AND    PURCHASING    POWER    OF    CANNING    PEARS 

Purchasing  Power  of  Canning  Pears,  1905-1927 '.51 — The  trend  of 
the  purchasing  power  per  ton  paid  for  California  canning  Bartletts  is 
shown  in  figure  27  to  have  declined  but  little  in  the  last  twenty  years. 
A  glance  at  figure  24,  and  at  the  central  section  of  figure  26,  shows  that 
this  decline  is  slight  in  comparison  with  the  substantial  increase  in 
the  canned-pear  output  of  California  and  of  the  United  States  during 
this  period.  Obviously  the  domestic  and  the  foreign  demand  for 
canned  pears  must  have  increased  much  more  rapidly  than  the  output 
to  prevent  a  much  more  appreciable  decline  in  their  purchasing  power 
than  has  actually  occurred. 


California    Canning -Pear  Prices    and  Purchasing   Power,    1905    ~io   I9Z7 


Price -^            /[ 

kM                                     /          \-    A 

5«L/L-    -*/\4   ,Z\J\f    _*=* A/  /Ay 

» ^  v^  \£r  v  T  yf  t-lt 

Purchasing   Poi~er  ■-> 

3      19     zo     ei      zz     C3     za 


Fig.  27. — The  purchasing  power  of  California  canning  Bartletts  has  declined 
hut  slightly  in  the  last  two  decades  compared  with  big  increase  in  the  amount 
canned. 

(Data  from  table  24.) 


Relation  of  Price  to  Canned-Pear  Pack. — Apparently  the  major 
factor  determining  the  amount  of  pears  that  are  canned  in  any  year 
is  the  price  paid  by  the  canneries.  From  1913  to  date  there  has  not 
been  an  exception  to  the  rule  that  an  increase  in  the  purchasing  power 
per  ton  of  canning  pears  over  the  previous  year  has  resulted  in  an 
increased  quantity  of  California  pears  being  packed  or,  conversely, 
that  a  decrease  in  price  has  been  accompanied  by  a  decline  in  the 
amount  packed. 


51  See  pages  36-43  for  a  discussion  of  the  price  and  purchasing  power  of  Pacific 
Coast  pears  in  eastern  markets,  and  page  99  for  a  very  brief  discussion  of 
California  dried-pear  prices  and  purchasing  power. 


90 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


TABLE  24 
Approximate  Price  and  Purchasing  Power  of  California  Canning  Bartletts, 

1905-1927 


Price 

Purchasing  power 

All-commodity 

wholesale-price 

index 

Crop  year 

Per  ton 

Per  cent  of 
1910-14  average 

Per  ton 

Per  cent  of 
1910-14  average 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

1910-14  Average 

Hi 
45 
30 
50 
20 
30 
40 
50 
25 
40 
50 
30 
50 
40 
65 
85 

100 
65 
70 
35 
55 
70 
37 
44 

100 
110 

73 
122 

49 

73 

98 
122 

61 

98 
122 

73 
122 

98 
159 
208 
244 
159 
171 

86 
134 
171 

90 
107 

m 

51 
33 
53 
22 
30 
39 
53 
25 
39 
50 
29 
39 
22 
33 
40 
43 
43 
46 
22 
36 
43 
24 
30 

100 
125 
81 
128 
53 
74 
95 
128 
60 
96 
122 
71 
95 
54 
80 
99 
106 
106 
112 
54 
88 
105 
59 
73 

100 

1905 : 

88 

1906 

1907 

90 
95 

1908 

92 

1909 

99 

1910 

103 

1911 

95 

1912 

101 

1913 

102 

1914 

100 

1915 

103 

1916 

129 

1917 

180 

1918 

198 

1919 

210 

1920 

230 

1921 

150 

1922          

152 

1923     

157 

1924     

152 

1925     

162 

1926          

154 

1927          

149 

1928          

Sources  of  data: 

Col.  1. — Approximate  average  price  per  ton  paid  by  canners  for  No.  1  California  canning  pears. 
Data  for  1905-1918  based  upon  the  prices  paid  by  large  commercial  canners  and  for  1919-1927  based  largely 
upon  prices  paid  by  the  California  Pear  Growers  Association  to  its  members. 

Col.  3. — Purchasing  power  per  ton  is  calculated  by  dividing  the  price  in  col.  1  by  the  all-commodity 
wholesale-price  index  in  col.  5  for  the  corresponding  year  and  multiplying  by  100. 

Col.  5. — U.  S.  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics  all-commodity  wholesale-price  index  for  the  United  States 
for  calendar  years,  converted  to  a  1910-1914  base  of  100.  Data  from  U.  S.  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.  Agricultural 
Situation  12  (4) :  6.    April  1928. 


This  tendency  for  the  size  of  the  canned-pear  pack  to  vary  directly 
with  changes  in  the  price  paid  to  growers  for  canning  pears  leads  to 
a  serious  problem,  the  satisfactory  solution  of  which  is  of  vital  im- 
portance to  both  growers  and  canners.  To  raise  the  price  for  can- 
ning pears  diverts  a  larger  tonnage  from  growers  to  canneries,  but 
to  raise  the  price  for  canned  pears  decreases  the  amount  that  con- 
sumers will  buy.  The  canner,  however,  if  he  pays  a  high  price  for 
canning  pears  must  either  reduce  his  expenses  or  else  receive  a  some- 
what proportionally  higher  price  for  his  canned  pears,  if  his  business 
is  to  be  profitable.     The  price  paid  for  canning  pears  has  too  fre- 


BUL.  452]  ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF  THE  PEAR  INDUSTRY  91 

quently  been  such  as  to  create  a  discrepancy  between  the  amount 
packed  and  the  greatest  amount  which  could  be  sold  to  the  consumer 
at  a  price  reasonably  profitable  to  the  packers. 

Some  method  of  securing  a  better  adjustment  between  the  canning 
price,  the  resulting  pack,  and  the  actual  price  at  which  it  can  be 
moved  into  consumption,  is  perhaps  the  most  important  problem 
involved  in  stabilizing  the  canned-fruit  industry  to  the  benefit  of 
both  canners  and  growers.  The  growers  are  interested  in  seeing  that 
the  canneries  do  not  recoup  the  losses  due  to  paying  too  high  a  price 
for  canning  fruit  one  year,  by  paying  an  unreasonably  low  price  the 
following  year.  The  canners  themselves  are  interested  in  seeing  that 
the  fruit-canning  business  be  stabilized  enough  to  avoid  losses  due  to 
this  cause  and  thus  to  eliminate  the  necessity  of  recouping  such  losses. 
An  intensive  study  of  this  vital  problem  should  commend  itself  to 
the  California  fruit  industry  because  of  its  great  practical  value.  The 
growers  of  other  canning  fruits,  particularly  the  cling-peach  growers, 
are  confronted  with  this  same  serious  problem.  Such  a  study,  how- 
ever, is  beyond  the  scope  of  the  present  bulletin. 

EXPORTS   OF    CANNED    PEARS 

Large  and  Increasing  Exports  of  Canned  Pears. — In  the  last  five 
years,  an  average  of  approximately  l1/^  million  cases  of  canned  pears 
have  been  exported  each  year,  or  47  per  cent  of  the  national  canned- 
pear  output  and  approximately  6  per  cent  of  the  total  crop  of  pears. 
The  percentage  of  the  national  pack  exported  in  recent  years  has 
varied  from  about  44  to  53  per  cent.  Of  our  total  exports  of  canned 
peaches,  pears,  and  apricots  in  recent  years,  averaging  about  140 
million  pounds,  pears  have  constituted  about  54  million  pounds,  or 
38!/2  per  cent,  peaches  about  61  million  pounds,  or  43%  per  cent,  and 
apricots  approximately  25  million  pounds,  or  almost  18  per  cent.52 

Judging  from  the  available  figures  shown  in  table  22,  there  seems 
to  be  a  tendency  for  exports  to  vary  somewhat  in  proportion  to  the 
United  States  pack,  wThich,  as  shown  in  figure  25,  has  been  increasing. 
Rough  estimates  of  the  quantity  of  canned  pears  and  of  other  canned 
fruits  exported  from  the  United  States  before  the  war,  based  upon  cal- 
culations made  by  the  trade,  indicate  that  exports  of  canned  pears 
have  at  least  kept  pace  with,  and  may  even  have  somewhat  exceeded, 

52  Computations  based  on  data  compiled  from  U.  S.  Commerce'  and  Navigation 
for  the  years  1923-1926.  A  brief  discussion  of  our  output  and  exports  of  canned 
peaches  will  be  found  in  Wellman,  H.  R.  Peaches.  California  Agr.  Ext.  Cir. 
1  :  1-64.  1926;  and  of  canned  apricots  in  the  bulletin  by  the  same  author: 
California  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  423:  1-42.     1927. 


92  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

the  great  increase  in  the  pack  since  pre-war  years.53  The  marked 
upward  trend  of  canned-pear  exports  indicated  by  these  estimates 
is  likewise  in  a  general  way  substantiated  by  statistics  of  the  quantity 
of  canned  fruits,  other  than  pineapples,  imported  into  the  United 
Kingdom  annually  from  1910  to  1924.54 

Aside  from  pineapples,  imports  of  canned  fruit  into  the  United 
Kingdom  chiefly  consist  of  apricots,  pears,  and  peaches.  The  fact 
that  this  has  been  true  for  many  years  and  that  the  United  Kingdom 
has  consistently  been  the  outstanding  foreign  market  for  canned 
fruits  enables  one  to  approximate  the  trend  of  the  total  quantity  of 
these  three  kinds  of  canned  fruits  exported  from  the  United  States 
during  the  last  twenty  years.  United  States  exports  to  the  British 
Isles  of  fruits  other  than  pineapples  canned  in  syrup,  during  the 
five-year  period  of  1921-1925  were  approximately  3.8  times  those  in 
the  pre-war  years  of  1909-1913. 55  In  the  light  of  these  figures  and 
available  supplementary  information,  the  tentative  conclusion  may 
be  drawn  that  canned-pear  exports  from  the  United  States  have 
probably  increased  at  approximately  as  fast  a  rate  in  the  period  under 
discussion  as  the  exports  of  canned  peaches,  apricots,  and  pears. 

British  Isles  Our  Chief  Foreign  Canned-Pear  Market. — The  out- 
standing importance  of  the  British  Isles  as  a  foreign  outlet  for  our 
canned  pears  is  shown  in  table  25.  Almost  90  per  cent  of  our  canned- 
pear  exports  have  gone  to  the  British  Isles  in  recent  years,  the  propor- 
tion varying  only  from  about  84  to  92  per  cent.  Exports  of  canned 
peaches  exceeded  those  of  canned  pears  by  about  7  million  pounds 
annually  during  the  years  1923-1926.  The  British  market,  however, 
received  about  10  per  cent  more  of  the  pears  than  of  the  peaches.  As 
a  result,  the  average  British  imports  of  the  two  kinds  of  canned  fruit 
from  the  United  States  have  been  practically  equal,  averaging  approxi- 
mately 48  million  pounds.  Imports  of  canned  apricots  have  been 
only  about  half  as  great  as  those  of  pears.  Since  the  Pacific  Coast 
states  produce  about  90  per  cent  of  the  national  output  of  canned 
pears,  the  vital  dependence  of  their  canned-pear  industry  upon  the 
English  market  is  indicated  by  the  fact  that  the  British  alone  have 
imported  and  consumed  over  40  per  cent  of  the  United  States  canned- 
pear  pack  in  recent  years. 

53  Wentz,  E.  A.  The  California  canned  and  dried-fruit  industries  with  special 
reference  to  their  dependence  upon  exporting.  An  unpublished  thesis  submitted 
to  the  University  of  California  as  partial  fulfillment  of  the  master's  degree  in 
1925,  page  26. 

54  Great  Britain,  Statistical  abstract  for  the  United  Kingdom,  1910-1924, 
pp.  90,  91.     1926. 

ss  Based  on  data  compiled  from  Annual  Statements  of  the  Trade  of  the 
United  Kingdom. 


Bul.  452] 


ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF   THE  PEAR   INDUSTRY 


93 


Pa      ° 


H3 

er_. 

GCm 


8  ffi 


^3 

o  c 

en  a 
j>0- 


3^ 

5.i 


&r° 


8»    J° 

**  o 
:rS. 


o  *t>  o  ^  o 

P"  o    <2    g    - 

D  O  O  W 

5    C     t°     "> 

T  i*  B  s- 

if 

3  E 

3     3 
TO 

o 
p 

3- 

3 

o 

2  P    85    g- 

?!  rs 

3  ;      :      £ 

21       j    S 

o 

T 

-1 

o 

/> 

3' 

o 

Q 

1 

I 

e 

3 

SS, 

a" 

a 

©' 
3 

4>-                      CO 

C* 

l«k 

0  a  o 

> 

^  <o  »j  e  m 

CO    O    O    >*»■    Cn 

OS 
OS 

CO    to           -J 
O    ©    -J  "*■ 

O   oS   >*>•   oo   co 

«l 

»    M    Ol    *■ 

p 

CD 

t5    Oo    MO    M 

•<i   en   co    © 

^_ 

CO     |_>     t— t     OS 

oo   *s   co  -q   o 

Cn   co   ►—   oo 

8  I? 

CO 

to 
to 

©<=>»**  -j  co 

o 

OO    CO     >«*    CO 

to 

OS 

■*>-                H-     tO 

«* 

j£ 

s>  8,  • 

*     Ol    »    M    O 

*■  i"*        *■ 

bO     CO    tO    -4    CD 

«6 

M    (*k    CO    OS 

O    N    *    W    O 

t© 

CO    CO    ~J    CO 

CO 

to 

OS 

«>    l-»    (O    Ol 

o 

oo 

§  ^ 

oo  •—   os  to  to 

itk    O)     K    00    M 

oo    to    H-    ^J 

M    00    CO    H 

5-S 

>*>.  -S    ©    CO    o 

'<D   en    o  a   00 
h-  -fe^    00    co    to 
-J    -.    ©    »*>■    -J 

OS 
JO 

OS 

co  to         to 

en    en    os    os 

•Op  J 

Is! 

-J    OO    CO    O 

oo 

OS     h-    CD     to 

co 
to 
en 

»     M     K     Ol 

o 

CO 

3  rti 

M    «S    l»k    <D    00 

o 

Cn    CO    h-    o 

H-     CO    Cn    OS    00 

C> 

to  -j  o  i— 

Ji  1 

csi                 co 

Cn 

en 

Thou- 
sands of 
pounds 

O    *©     -1    CD     OS 
"en    In    t-i    ►-»    to 

_co 

to   to          CO 

"t^  'co    ^J    o 
OS    O    i*^    o 

iC  n    i->  a  co 

M    O)     O)     t    O 

*e 

u 

tO    OO     >+-    CD 

CD 

to 

#> 

_   oo    ►-   *-   os 

o 

00 

3  2 

h-   oo    to    en   h- 

p 

,*«.     4*     I-"     CO 

►—   co   O   Cn   >*>. 

o 

to    CO    CO    OS 

C©                  to 

CO 

—    CO 

Us 

CO    ^    4».    *».    oo 

o 

to    to           !*»• 

Cn    o    ©    Cn    Cn 
M    to    m    ►.    o 
to    >->*>.    CO    *- 

ex 

OS   oo   oo   to 

Cn 

O0      *-      H-      #- 

CO 

>*»•    to     ©    ~4 

CO 

CO 

CO               N-     ^» 

o 

00 

3   <B 

93    ►«     CO     M    O 

o 

OS    OS    to    ►(*■ 

S     C«     CO     M     43 

o 

os  co   o  en 

mK    tn   oo    o 

OS 

to               to 

?8g 

III 

M    16    M    l^    O 
*  *.    Cn    t\3    M 

a  oiojo  i^ 

en    Os    os    ^J 
H-   co   to    to 

»—    -J    O    i^- 

CO 

to 

^    Cn    to    00    £ 

CO 

§,7 

D  2 

JO 

6SS 

— 

*" 

~J 

o 

ilk 

>*■. 

CO 

CO 

S-  "* 

hd 


o 
d 

>     W 
OQ 

o 

SO 

to    m 

to    |> 

o 
a 

t> 

u 

td 
H 

O 

d 

►a 

o 


94  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

Cuba  and  Canada  have  ranked  second  and  third  as  importers  of 
our  canned  pears.  The  two  together  have  on  the  average  taken  only 
slightly  over  5  per  cent  of  our  total  exports  since  1922.  All  other 
countries  together  have  taken  slightly  less  than  6  per  cent  of  the  total. 

The  dominant  position  of  United  States  canned-fruit  exports  in 
the  United  Kingdom  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  during  the  years 
1921-1925  approximately  86  per  cent  of  the  total  British  canned- 
fruit  imports  (exclusive  of  pineapples)  came  from  this  country. 
Even  when  canned  pineapples,  as  well  as  all  other  fruits  are  con- 
sidered, the  United  States  has  contributed  almost  two-thirds  of  British 
canned-fruit  imports  in  recent  years.  Only  about  10  per  cent  of 
canned  fruits  other  than  pineapples  have  been  imported  from  British 
countries.  Chief  of  these  is  Australia,  which  contributed  about  8  per 
cent,  and  is  the  only  country  aside  from  the  United  States  contributing 
as  much  as  2  per  cent  of  the  total.  About  four-fifths  of  British  canned- 
pineapple  imports  come  from  the  Straits  Settlements.56 

A  comparison  of  the  average  annual  imports  of  the  United  King- 
dom for  the  pre-war  years  1909-1913  with  the  five  years  1921-1925 
shows  that  the  total  imports  of  canned  fruits  other  than  pineapples 
have,  during  the  post-war  period,  been  about  four  times  the  pre-war 
imports;  imports  from  the  United  States  alone  about  3.8  times. 
Although  the  United  States  was  the  source  of  about  93  per  cent  of 
British  canned-fruit  imports  (other  than  pineapples)  before  the  war, 
her  share  in  recent  years  has  been  reduced  to  about  86  per  cent.  This 
relative  decline  is  almost  entirely  accounted  for  by  imports  from 
Australia,  which  were  negligible  before  the  war,  but  which,  as  already 
indicated,  have  in  recent  years  constituted  about  8  per  cent  of  British 
imports  of  canned  fruits  other  than  pineapples. 

Increasing  Competition  from  Australian  Canned  Fruit. — The 
rapid  growth  of  Australian  irrigated  fruit  acreage  in  the  last  decade 
is  of  special  significance  to  the  United  States  pear  industry  because 
it  tends  to  swell  the  output,  and  hence  the  exports,  of  canned  fruit 
and  jams  (and  incidentally  dried  fruits).  These  exports  are  largely 
consumed  in  the  British  Isles,  and  compete  directly  with  the  major 
part  of  our  exports  of  canned  pears,  apricots,  and  peaches. 


68  The  vital  dependence  of  the  canning  industry  of  the  United  States  upon  the 
British  market  suggests  further  study  of  the  volume,  sources,  and  trends  of  canned- 
fruit  imports  into  the  British  Isles  and  the  possibilities  of  future  expansion  of 
our  sales  in  this  market.  Unfortunately  canned-pineapple  imports  are  the  only 
ones  for  which  imports  are  given  separately  for  individual  fruits  in  British  statis- 
tics of  foreign  trade.  It  is  therefore  necessary  to  study  British  imports  of  all 
canned  fruits  but  pineapples,  as  a  group.  However,  apart  from  pineapples,  British 
imports  of  canned  fruits  chiefly  consist  of  peaches,  pears,  and  apricots. 


Bul.  452] 


ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF   THE  PEAR  INDUSTRY 


95 


Data  in  table  26  indicate  that  although  Australian  production  of 
jam,  which  grew  rapidly  during  the  war,  has  since  declined  consider- 
ably, the  output  of  preserved  or  canned  fruits  has  shown  a  tendency 
to  increase  since  1918.  Table  27  shows  that  pears  have  constituted 
over  20  per  cent  of  the  total  Australian  pack  of  canned  pears,  peaches, 
and  apricots  in  recent  years.  Judging  from  table  26,  the  canned-pear 
output  seems  to  be  increasing,  but  not  as  rapidly  as  that  of  peaches. 

TABLE  26 

Factory  Output  of  Canned  Fruit  and  of  Jams,  Marmalades,  and  Jellies, 

Australia  and  Union  of  South  Africa  in  Kecent  Years 


Australia 

Union  of  South  Africa 

Season 

Jam 
pounds 

Preserved 

fruit 

pounds 

Jams,  marmalade, 

and  jellies 

pounds 

Canned  and 

bottled  fruit 

pounds 

1916-17 

13,768,000 
16,455,424 
18,451,287 
18,319,466 
13,774,349 
7,878,346 
12,535,020 
14,467,215 

1,448,000 

1917-18 

1,973,789 

1918-19 

135,737,756* 
111,322,754 
90,140,566* 
57,195,815 
66,971,456 
66,283,840 
64,657,052* 

33,628,941 
47,943,019 
23,866,993 
41,847,494 
44,439,968 
49,978,003 
65,874,977 

2,138,214 

1919-20 

2,381,638 

1920-21 

2,693,541 

1921-22 

4,237,002 

1922-23 

3,950,808 

1923-24 

3,668,324 

1924-25 

1925-26 

1926-27 

*  Exclusive  of  Western  Australia. 

Data  for  Australia  from:  Commonwealth  of  Australia,  Bur.  of  Census  and  Statistics.  Summary  of 
Australian  Production  Statistics  1914-15  to  1924-25.  Production  Bul.  19:  161.  [C.S.  No.  494.]  1926.  Data 
for  South  Africa  from  Union  of  South  Africa,  Office  of  Census  and  Statistics.  Statistics  of  Production, 
1923-24:  69.    1926. 


TABLE  27 

Australian   Canned  Pack  of  Peaches,  Pears,   and  Apricots, 

1922-23  to  1925-26* 


J"*~  ' n 

Average  1922-23 
through  1925-26 

1922-23 
cases 

1923-24 
cases 

1924-25 
cases 

1925-26 

Cases 

Per  cent 
of  total 

cases 

151,367 

218,390 

57,005 

588,653 

14.9 

21.5 

5.6 

58.0 

122,622 

137,386 

46,744 

477,792 

140,597 

255,173 

67,704 

490,461 

206,575 

272,528 

93,899 

627,357 

135,675 

208,475 

19,673 

758,999 

Total  

1,015,415 

100  0 

784,544 

953,935 

1,200,359 

1,122,822 

*  In  cases  of  24  tins  each. 

Sources  of  data:  Based  on  data  given  in  dozen  tins  as  reported  by  American  Trade  Commissioner 
E.  G.  Babbitt,  Sydney,  Australia  in  U.  S.  Dept.  Commerce  Foodstuffs  'Round  the  World:  Canned  and 
Dried  Foods  (mimeo.)  p.  1.    Feb.  11,     1927. 


96 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


PQ 


2        0 


^ 

to 

L3 

U  °  O 

co  cm  cc 

t*~     ©    r- 

a> 

N    *    C 

N    W    N             Oi 

fe  2 

«o 

1-H     »H 

o> 

&® 

Ph 

c3^ 

S  1 

Oco 
33  <m 

»  e  n 

t^.     CO     CN 

t^ 

n 

CM     **     CC 

w*    .-«    •** 

s 

O    W    Ot 

US    CM    Oi             *-l 

U3 
§ 

O    ©    !2 

e  w  « 

of  CO    IN            CM 

M    8>    H             US 

O  '"", 

lO    Tfl 

©_  ■<*    00      1 

£ 

« 

CO 

CM    «H 

S" 

4)         S 

1 

be 

«*2"C 

o  o  — 

OO    H    t> 

CM 

fl 

h,   °   C8 

t  *  ■* 

IN    (O    Tt 

•c 

1 

S         4> 

Ph       •*> 

5 

J2 

O 

C 

in 

HOIOC 

Ol    (O    « 

OS 

o 

S 

CM    US    (M 

CO    US    «* 

■^1 

00 

fe 

hi 

•**    Tjt   u; 

•«»< 

Oi 

<J 

OS     CO 
CM 

N    CO    f 

s 

N) 

a 

73 

ID    Ol    C 
SO    00    t- 

o  a  « 

00    O    IC 

IT- 

'E 

l-> 

O    t-    C 

O   oo  u; 

CO 

c3 

CM*   00    m 

-h    co    o- 

CO 

CM     ^H 

CM 

PQ 

«~   M 

' 

a 

S«5 

o  a 

nee  betw 
ng  1924-2 
I  bearing 
918-19 

8.S2 

■«*  us 

CO    US 

»-H     CO     C£ 

US 
CO 

OJT'TJ  »-l 

C  a  d 

0)    w    nj 

s.8 

1 

— i   ©   a- 

us   o   •* 

•H 

us  in  oe 

H    M    N 

00 

06    ffl    « 
"      1 

oo   cm  cr 

US 

Q 

< 

cr>  -*     1 

CO    CN 

oo" 

CO    co    CM 
oo  *  o 

us   00   cc 

t- 

15 

i 

OO     fM     — 

■* 

HSC 

o>    US    t~- 

o 

o 

»    M    H 

tO*   N    0C 

CM 

<J 

OS     ,-H 

CM    CM    -h 

00 

1  Is 

M 

ut2  E 

co  cm  © 
cm  co  u: 

CO 

a 

w,  °  s 

CM    CM    CM 

us 

•c 

Ph      "° 

4. 

CM 

OS 

a 

s 

N    *    ifl 

©      ©     T* 

CT> 

0 

CO    ©    r- 

CM    O    «H 

o>  t~  co 

t*< 

£ 

E 

©   •*  o 

CM 

<5 

t--"    CO 

us  us  cc 

CO 

bfi 

tO     OS     t- 

US    ©    CN 

oo 

fl 

—I    CO    CN 

oi  n  oc 

00    ©    ^ 

CT> 

'C 

£ 

OS    t-    OC 

00 

cS 

1-4    o" 

—    t~-    CN 

•*<" 

0) 

<< 

00.55.   . 

(M    -H   »r 

pq 

" 

t 

c 

£ 

I 

3 

"5 

c 

3  « 
8  S 

.   0.   <u 

s3    a 

0)     £ 

£ 
a 

3 

o 

< 

< 

X 

Ph 

Ph 

E 

BUL.  452]  ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF  THE  PEAR  INDUSTRY  97 

Since  the  population  of  Australia  will  probably  not  increase  greatly 
in  the  next  few  years  and  the  canned-fruit  industry  has  been  on  an 
export  basis  for  several  years,  any  appreciable  expansion  of  the 
canned-fruit  output  will  probably  result  in  an  increase  of  exports,  the 
majority  of  which  compete  with  those  from  the  United  States  on  the 
English  market. 

Table  28  shows  the  striking  growth  of  Australian  deciduous  tree- 
fruit  acreage  in  the  six  years  from  1918-1919  to  1924-1925  and  also 
indicates  the  probability  of  considerable  further  expansion  in  the  next 
few  years.  The  production  of  pears  in  recent  years  has  been  nearly 
as  large  as  that  of  Oregon,  and  the  bearing  acreage  is  about  30  per 
cent  greater.  The  probability  of  a  substantial  increase  in  the  bearing 
acreage  and  production  of  pears,  and  of  other  deciduous  tree  fruits 
as  well,  is  indicated  by  the  substantial  proportion  of  trees  which  were 
not  of  bearing  age  in  1925.  The  fact  that  Australian  fruit  exports  are 
largely  in  canned  or  dried  form  would  lead  one  to  expect  a  continued 
expansion  of  such  imports  in  the  next  few  years.  The  very  limited 
demand  for  dried  pears  at  remunerative  prices  suggests  the  possi- 
bility of  a  more  pronounced  increase  in  the  canned-pear  output  than 
in  that  of  dried  pears. 

As  yet  the  Union  of  South  Africa  exports  but  a  small  quantity  of 
canned  fruit.  These  exports  are  gradually  increasing,  however,  and 
the  trend  of  fruit  plantings  indicates  that  in  another  generation  her 
canned-fruit  exports  may  become  large  enough  to  decidedly  influence 
the  British  market  for  our  canned  fruit.57 


DRIED   PEARSss 

Dried  Pears  Relatively  Unimportant. — The  output  of  dried  pears 
in  the  United  States  is  of  relatively  little  commercial  importance. 
Although  the  Federal  Census  Bureau  has  never  published  the  output 
of  dried  pears  separately,  it  is  generally  known  that  California  is  the 
only  state  in  the  Union  which  dries  pears  commercially  in  any  appre- 
ciable quantities.  The  dried-pear  output  of  this  state,  however,  is 
relatively  unimportant  in  comparison  with  either  the  total  pear  crop 
of  the  state  or  the  total  output  of  all  dried  fruits,  and  has  not  kept 
pace  with  either  in  the  last  twenty  years.  The  average  annual  dried 
output  for  1910-1914  of  about  1,450  tons  utilized  nearly  14  per  cent 


57  See  table  26  for  the  factory  output  of  canned  fruit  in  recent  years. 

58  A  brief  discussion  of  the  dried-pear  industry  of  California  may  be  found  in : 
Weldon,  G.  P.  Pear  growing  in  California.  California  State  Com.  Hort.  Monthly 
Bui.  7:394-399.  1918;  and  also  in:  Stokes,  F.  G.  The  dried  pear  industry. 
California  State  Com.  Hort.  Monthly  Bui.  6:  121-125.     1917. 


98  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

of  the  commercial  pear  crop ;  the  average  of  about  3,600  tons  during 
the  five  years  1922-1926,  only  about  12  per  cent.  (See  figure  26,  page 
88,  and  table  31,  page  102.)  This  dried  tonnage  of  pears  is  consider- 
ably less  than  1  per  cent  of  the  average  commercial  output  of  all  dried 
fruits  in  California  in  recent  years. 

The  dried-pear  industry  has  for  a  good  many  years  been  more 
important  in  Lake  County  than  in  any  other  section  of  California. 
The  fact  that  most  of  the  pear  orchards  of  Lake  County  are  about 
30  miles  from  a  railroad  shipping  point  has  resulted  in  the  drying 
of  much  fruit  of  good  quality.  In  pear-producing  sections  conveni- 
ently close  to  rail  transportation,  in  other  sections  of  the  state,  the 
good  pears  are  usually  packed  or  sold  to  the  canneries;  those  dried 
are  mostly  culls.  The  superior  quality  of  much  of  the  dried-pear 
output  of  Lake  County  has  in  the  past  resulted  in  considerably  higher 
prices  for  these  dried  pears  than  for  those  from  other  sections  of  the 
state.  With  the  greatly  increased  use  of  motor  trucks  in  the  last 
few  years,  a  larger  proportion  of  Lake  County  pears  have  been  canned 
or  shipped  to  eastern  markets  than  formerly.  The  dried  output  is, 
however,  still  considerable. 

Great  Fluctuations  in  Dried-Pear  Output. — The  proportion  of  the 
commercial  pear  crop  of  California  which  is  dried,  and  the  actual 
tonnage,  varies  greatly  from  year  to  year.  In  1922  about  20  per  cent 
of  the  commercial  crop  was  dried,  but  only  8  per  cent  in  1923.  The 
dried  tonnage  of  pears  in  1922  was  5,000  and  in  1923  only  2,000. 
These  great  ups  and  downs  in  the  dried  output  are  to  a  considerable 
extent  due  to  the  fact  that  the  dried-pear  output  is  determined  by 
what  is  left  to  dry  after  growers  have  decided  how  much  they  will 
ship  east  and  the  canners  how  much  they  will  put  in  cans.  The  close 
relationship  which  the  dried-pear  pack  bears  to  the  total  tonnage  of 
pears  produced  in  the  state  is  indicated  by  the  fact  that  in  fourteen 
of  the  last  seventeen  years,  the  tonnage  dried  increased  or  decreased 
in  the  same  direction  as  total  production. 

Europeans  Are  Chief  Consumers. — Europe  has  long  been  the  chief 
market  for  our  dried  pears,  the  majority  of  which  are  exported 
thereto.59  It  is  claimed  that  even  in  the  United  States  most  of  the 
usual  quality  of  dried  pears  is  consumed  by  European  immigrants 
who  have  cultivated  a  taste  for  them  and  know  how  to  prepare  them 
in  an  appetizing  manner.  Foreign  peoples  are  said  to  prefer  the 
dried  pear  stewed  with  other  fruits  as  a  fruit  salad.60    Most  Americans 

59  Weldon,  G.  P.  Pear  growing  in  California.  California  State  Com.  Hort. 
Monthly  Bui.  7:  395.  1918;  and  Kieffer,  D.  L.  King  Bartlett  of  Lake  County. 
Pacific  Kural  Press  98  :  291.     1919. 

eo  Swett,  F.  T.  in  California  Pear  Grower  3  (1):  5.     1923. 


Bul.  4: 


ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF   THE   PEAR  INDUSTRY 


99 


apparently  do  not  know  how  to  cook  dried  pears  in  as  appetizing  a 
way  as  many  foreigners  do.  We  also  have  numerous  other  dried  fruits 
to  choose  from  for  which  we  have  already  acquired  a  taste  and  hence 
it  is  a  serious  question  whether  any  considerable  increase  in  the 
demand  for  dried  pears  can  be  economically  stimulated  in  this  country 
in  the  near  future. 


California    Dried  -  Pear  Prices  and  Purchasing  Power,    i909   -  1927 

zo 

be 
1 

An 

■ua/ 

Pric 

e  — 

/<3 

- 

I. 

1Z 
8 

/ 

r-^ 

\ 

y 

V 

\ 

t 
/ 

/ 

\ 

I   / 

\ 

> 

\ 
\ 

- 

f 

\ 

f 

r 

^ 

\ 

\ 

/ 
/ 

f 

Ourc 

has/ 

/ 

nq   / 

^OW& 

\ 

\ 
\ 

rJ\ 

/ 

/ 
/ 

\ 

\ 

+*- 

a 

a 

0 

/9t 

09  19/ 

0     1 

/; 

1      u 

J         A 

t     I9t 

5        / 

5      / 

7     1 

9        /< 

?      & 

ZO  z 

1      z 

■z    z 

3    z 

4     19. 

Z5   Z 

6      Z 

7      2 

0 
9 

Fig.  28. — Dried-pear  prices  fluctuate  considerably  from  year  to  year.  The 
trend  of  purchasing  power  per  ton  since  1910  has  been  approximately  on  a 
level. 

(Data  from  table  29.) 

Dried-Pear  Purchasing  Power,  1909-1927 . — The  prices  and  pur- 
chasing power  of  California  dried  pears  shown  in  figure  28  and  table 
29  do  not  represent  prices  to  growers,  but  are  a  simple  average  of 
packers  quotations  on  northern  choice  dried  pears  at  wholesale,  f.o.b. 
California,  for  July  through  December  each  year.  These  data,  how- 
ever, in  the  absence  of  prices  to  growers,  are  useful  indicators  of  the 
probable  trend  and  relative  changes  in  the  price  and  purchasing  power 
of  dried  pears,  other  than  fancy  Lake  County  pears,  since  19.10. 
Figure  29  shows  that  both  the  price  and  purchasing  power  of  dried 
pears  fluctuates  considerably  from  year  to  year.  A  comparison  of  the 
changes  in  the  purchasing  power  of  dried  pears  and  the  production 
of  all  pears  and  of  dried  pears  in  California  from  year  to  year  since 
1909  shows  no  apparent  tendency  for  prices  either  to  rise  and  fall 
with  production  or  in  the  opposite  direction.  The  trend  of  purchasing 
power  since  1909  has  been  approximately  on  a  level. 


100 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


APPENDIX   OF   TABLES 


TABLE  2i 


California  Dried  Pear  Price  and  Purchasing  Power,  Packers'  Quotations 
f.o.b.  California,  1909-1927 


Price 

Purchasing  power 

Crop  year 

Cents  per  lb. 

Per  cent 
of  1910-14 
average 

Cents  per  lb. 

Per  cent 
of  1910-14 
average 

wholesale- price 

index 

(July-Dec.) 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

1910-14  average 

1909 

1910 

1911 

1912 

1913 

1914 

1915 

1916 

1917 

1918 

1919 

1920 

1921 

1922 

1923 

1924 

1925 

1926 

1927 

1928 

8.8 
7.1 
10.3 
10.5 
6.8 
7.7 
8.9 
7.8 
8.1 
9.1 
15  2 
22.5 
15.1 
15.4 
13.1 
8.2 
17.3 
14.9 
9.1 
10  4 

100 

81 
117 
118 

77 

87 
100 

88 

91 
103 

173      • 
254 
171 
175 
149 

93 
196 
169 
103 
118 

8.8 
7.1 

10.1 

11.0 
6.7 
7.5 
8.8 
7.5 
5.8 
4.8 
7.4 

10.3 
6.9 

10.7 
8.3 
5.2 

11.2 
9.2 
6.0 
6.9 

100 
80 

115 

125 
76 
85 
99 
85 
66 
55 
84 

116 
79 

122 
94 
60 

127 

105 
68 
78 

100 
101 
102 
95 
102 
102 
101 
104 
138 
189 
205 
219 
218 
144 
158 
155 
154 
161 
152 
150 

Sources  of  data: 

Col.  1.— A  simple  or  unweighted  average  of  the  weekly  average  of  the  range  in  packers'  quotations 
f.  o.  b.  California  for  "Northern,"  "choice"  dried  pears  per  pound  in  25-lb.  boxes  unfaced  for  each  season 
from  the  first  quotations  of  the  season  through  the  last  in  December.  Compiled  from  the  California 
Fruit  News. 

Col.  3. — Estimated  approximate  purchasing  power  per  pound  is  calculated  by  dividing  items  in 
col.  1  by  the  corresponding  items  in  col.  5  and  multiplying  by  100. 

Col.  5.— U.  S.  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics  all-commodity  wholesale-price  index  for  the  United  States 
converted  to  a  1910-1914  base  of  100,  average  for  the  months  July  through  December  which  period  corre- 
sponds approximately  to  those  upon  which  the  average  prices  in  col.  1  were  based. 


Bul.  452] 


ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF   THE  PEAR  INDUSTRY 


101 


>o 

^3  TO  ■*    • 

»    ffi    O  3    1-1 

§-M       ? * 

gP   o  »     <-•■ 

••   CD    JO      <    ~->— "-^O      „ 

£P  -    ^°o  o  ~  P 

PC?.*"    <t>  a  •-»  co  ET  «' 

°-™  »   gffpM    * 
m    P  C.B.Sr'i  v 
S*_.£j  -    n>  ^  ^  o 

„      ,-.  tr.'o  -  •  co  *d   3 

"<    TOO    O    £  «2    -*     C- 

3  Or  w  w      ^c 

SLAB'S,    *T|* 
if  8  ^     g-»  S" 

0  to*    &*&!  p 

o  .    0   o  y*.         co 

§"•    5,  05 


p  00 

5-p  3 


*3.3      § 
^p  B     * 

osQ-  ._ 
osp  O 

oil 

<ogW      HciH 

too  O   £3  O. 

r^1'    ^         £0   JVP 


d  "i  w  p  p  a  > 


M     *     O     m     U<     M 
OS     O    00     tO     On    OO 


O    M    itw    Oi    M    h-    00 
©    00    ~J    10    to    O    CO 

O    Cn    o>    ^    M    00    M 


f< 

S 

DO 

O 

-1 

00 

Co 

CO 

01 

00 

CO 

0 

O 

en 

hi- 

CO 

0 

4k 

to 

^ 

OS 

so 

r 

to 

00    O0    CO     >*t 


O    M    it'    o>    <C    H    u 


S-  ~  ^  <5.  3   Si   p   S   *   5 
P    g    P    a 


g  O  2  3S  O 


p*  <g   "   p. 
2  *<    P'  <8   P    ^5' 


©    OS    On    4*-    OO    tO    I— 'OtDOO-iOOll^WMl- ' 


M    M    IO    S 


tOtOO0O0O0O04k0n 
OiWCOMUHOOOlf 
OOcOCOOnOS©^IOOi— ' 


Ol    Ol    O)    ^J 


4S-    OO    OS    •<!    O    On    O 


1—  to    to    to    10    >*-    >*» 

oo(»Ui*.Cnl)oo>>-N)!Dtnai(» 
4*     t  O     I O     CC     4-     4-     O     1— '     OS     On     CO     C     OS 


©i-i©i-il-iK-tO0OtOOO0OtO4ken4k©O0 

aiua)oo^ooOMtoo^(no>cnu>jio 


1-1  to     H- 


u  to  ^  U  CO  u 


00  en  00  M  tc 
on  to  00  02  to 


t:   h  a  ^1 
to    if    On    ~-J 


CD 


"IP         'TJ1 

II   Iff 

."^  M         co   re   » 

p  S  o 


g-J? 

p^ 


ss- 

co  a 
5  W 

If 

to  P 

Onrt- 


g  co  <J 

p  5'S. 

3^§ 


1E!« 

pi 

si 

If 


On  to  -*J  -J  O  to  OO 

O  On  00  h*  O  O  O 

O  !«»•  03  >f  co  O  O 

O  to  4>-  to  ^1  on  h- 


I—  M     to     tO 

►fOOOOOnififOOnOnc© 
^-OnosOOOOOniftotO 


O    4*.    tiki    On 


OOOOOOOOOOOOn 


^UMtOMOlCndlvlOIUCOtO 


H-O00CO0n>ft003l*»O00 


»  h-  O  en  ©  >—  _*• 

OO  ID  OO  to  ^)  00  <D 

O  O  to  00  I—  OS  4^ 

On  O  On  ©  00  to  OO 


CO  On  to  00 


^)  ^-  OO  OO  *-  tO  4»- 

O   *   M   tO   M   ClJ   S 

On  ©  on  ©  co  00  to 


M  *  OO  to  tO  m  01 

00  to  ©  00  on  On  OO 

4*  OO  to  to  OO  4k  © 

Oi  r  _:  1  .  4-  1-  — 


oiootoaooo 


CO     >-.     to     tO     4*.     4^     OO     0>     4».     Oi     Oi     Oi     4»     to     -I     to 
©On^ionenOnco^-©^IH-©©©4^0n 

O00OOOOOt0Ui»OOOOOO 


Rank 


crS.3  o 


a<?^2, 


P  TO„  * 


SB    k-O 

<    COfD 

<B    4>- ~, 


000CtO00004k004kO5O50O©0n©^l0n 
W^ONWvliliOtSMOOOOOOiC 
4k4».©4ktO0n©©tOtO^jen©©©tO 


to    o   00   to    to   OS 


*-    to    h-    en 

00oooo4kOnos050nooto"i->Vi"on 
MtOMOOCJitOtOO-tOpOi* 
©    00    ©    On    OS    On    00    ©    4k    co     ©    O     ui    ©    ©    to 


m    w    to   »J 


©    o   00   to    -^t   to   00 


On    On    1—    00 


tOH-i-«tOOOOOCk30nen4ken4kOn© 
tO©0000O00n4kO0H--kOS4k0n©4k 
0ncoO0n©4kt0Os©t000©©©0n 


►—  CO  OO  -v|  00  OS 

©  4k  ©  OO  ©  4k  On 


to  to  00  00 

©  to  OS 


OO  ^1  ©  4k  _  oi 


to  OO  m  h  ^  CO  u 


MHKMtOtOUl^^ 

4k     to     CO     CO     On     -j     4k     00    to 
©00©00©©0n©0 


102 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


o  o 

PL,   © 


£o 


«  o 


c 
4>.-, 

ja  o 

00  53 


S3 


oo  4> 
"a!  ~ 

|1 

3  O 

PQo 


i^xocfuoinaonxiNoowowooQOONffiO 


GO  Go  Q* 


OOO^OOOiOOOOi 


00<MCOCOlO«Cft»Oa0»O' 


CO  IC  ■«*<  •**  CO  I 


1 t-  en  co  co 


Oi  Co  Oi 


I  iO  <M  CO  CO  ■>*  CO 


COCO(»CNC»«)00<X>cOCfc0005r-<e}COOieN05r^.'«tllOI 

C}CNCNCOCNCOCMCOCO<MCO 


coco-*-* 

<50  0~*' 


HOOrtfflmrtOeNHOMOrtOOOOOJOON 
(OU5NijlNNi)l4r5NrtNairtOOrHlMlOrtOOOMO 


iSCOMUJOOOMOtDX' 


IfONlOtOCP' 


NWCaCONtD. 
»«5(Oi0tD®O)lC0000OI 


.»O^OONih^(cCO! 


)0®00!tONM'*00'<(IO)HO'*OOOmM- 
UNOSiHCOOOXNOSCOCMl 


M31Cq0CrtOOINONM'*INtDNOOlO«OOO 
■*M(NrtNOCNU5Oi0'HlNU3NCnillOi'SO;X00O 
tD^lNOOlOJtOOl^NijttOOOCRtDOlOaiOC^tON 


|00rtlOl«»U5fflHCqrt00-HOlCM<OOOO 
mOMOINWCSIN^OONTtiONNrtrtOlOO 


lOONfflmi 


NOOiOMM' 


»-i^h<NCN<M<MCOO)CN1CMC 


•^•^•^•^•«tl»CCO«5t^Oi( 


M(OCONOOmiNX®M-H«50aiOOOOlMift1<NCO'<f  ■»*  co  »-, 

-HN0>OrtrtiO00MMO!IM-HMO05NOC<5eN0C  Co  i^  Ol 

04  lO  ■>*>  Oo"-^  "•* 

r*.  OS  CO  ^  *C  CO 


—  Ol-lOOiffl- IOMCS10M-HM0001OU5I 


•*»<t~-<*<oco-'f»ocN-"*<cO'fi'»ticoco-»*<ao 

CO-H->ti002cMOOO»CCOOCOCN— lOlH 


MONOliOO 


CO  W3  *«(■ 
C*J  Co  CO 
SO  O  «J 


«««*COm«5'0'lltOt^cD 


>  ©  —|<M  CO  <*  "5  CO  I 


:  os  O)  o;  o>  o>  oi  o>  a>  o  S  »^  §*  c*» 


^--- 


ci 


Sill 

O  O  ™  -^ 
co  0>  0  M  C 

03 rt  «!* 

•sll-s- 

c«ac  >> 

■**  -^  p.  ai~« 

« 

s;' 


!fi  o 


o. 


'Q«2 


00      J  £  §  03-U  «  S 
-^         Q.^*         b   ^   S   u 

S?^hiw  o  a>  g  o 

*S  <S,M    °r^    °    SR    ° 

-S,60  N-S  c"o  O  §  « 
.2?-; '33  £'~  co'C  £  « 

-•|2gg02-|i| 

_;.2  |  >»43  O  ST5  ^2  2 

^JD^M^^SflC^g 

Ig  2"2*!2«-5-c  ^ 


s  s 


O  Q 


0)    <u 


el  S 


3         >C      o3  g  c  o  fc<~a  g.g  a 
55  ^3«o  A   !.  eSv  ^  "£  J» +*  _o>  52 

0  m_«Shr,"i0°         *•         ° 


■p5  3.-|S 


!s^^ 


W.    j    * 


.CC^qj.^coco-^^oj 


3 


ffijtf&ttl 

<Meo»«  .£5*^.2  GO-1  03  «-g-g 

333?3|335|U 

»   o      BtBc 


Bul.  452] 


ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF   THE  PEAR  INDUSTRY 


103 


TABLE  32 

United  States  Carlot  Shipments  of  Pears  by  Chief  States  and  Groups, 

Crop  Years  1917-1926 


State  or  group 


California 

New  York 

Washington 

Oregon 

Colorado 

Illinois 

Michigan 

Delaware 

Texas 

Utah 

Ohio 

Missouri 

Indiana 

New  Jersey 

Maryland 

Pennsylvania 
Virginia 

Groupt— A 

B 

C 

D... 

E 

F 

Total  U.  S. 


Average  1924-1926 


Cars 


8,900 

3,249 

3,763 

2,203 

807 

689 

334 

217 

131 

62 

70 

75 

55 

53 

31 

25 

16 


Thou- 
sands 
of 
bushels 


4,450 

1,625 

1,882 

1,102 

404 

345 

167 

108 

65 

31 

35 

37 

28 

26 

15 

12 


Per  cent 
of  U.S. 
ship- 
ments 


Per 

cent  of 
produc- 
tion 


Per  cent 

of 
1919-1921 
average 


118 
154 
224 
126 
133 

48 
185 
119 
127 
210 
164 
135 

67 
132 
209 
130 


Average  1919-1921 


Cars 


4,672 

2,793 

2,419 

974 

641 

512 

681 

115 

104 

49 

29 

36 

40 

73 

25 

11 

10 


Thou- 
sands 
of 
bushels 


2,336 

1,396 

1,209 

487 

320 

256 

341 

57 

52 

25 

15 

18 

20 

37 

13 

6 

5 


Per  cent 
of  U.S. 
ship- 
ments 


35.1 
21  0 
18.1 
7.3 
4.8 
3.8 
5.1 
0.9 
0.8 
0.3 
0.2 
0.3 
0.3 
0.5 
0.2 
0.1 
0.1 


Per  cent 

of 
produc- 
tion 


57.2 
67  8 
78.2 
61.9 
78.1 
71.3 
51  6 
70.7 
11.3 
30  8 
5.9 
6.3 
10  9 
8.7 
5.2 
12 
2  0 


20,680 
218 

19,945 

14,866 
6,032 
5,966 

20,898 


10,340 
109 
9,974 
7,433 
3,016 
2,984 

10,449 


1.1 

95.5 
70.8 
29.2 
28.4 
100  0 


52.8 
5.1 
63.1 
64.5 
29.2 
73.2 
47.7 


155 

168 
156 
182 
113 
173 
155 


13,183 
146 

12,692 
8,065 
5,264 
3,393 

13,329 


6,593 
72 
6,345 
4,032 
2,633 
1,696 
6,665 


98.9 
1.1 
95  2 
60.5 
39.5 
25  4 
100.0 


52  1 
4.2 
64.2 
62.9 
33.0 
72.7 
46.4 


State  and  group 


California 

New  York 

Washington... 

Oregon 

Colorado 

Illinois 

Michigan 

Delaware 

Texas 

Utah 

Ohio 

Missouri 

Indiana 

New  Jersey 

Maryland 

Pennsylvania 
Virginia 

Groupt— A 

B 

C 

D 

E 

F 

Total  U.  S. 


Shipments  in  carlots 


1917 


5,000 

1,746 

1,700 

699 

382 

334 

696 

461 

18 

27 

29 

28 

45 

62 

54 

30 


11,327 
96 

10,557 
7,399 
4,024 
2,399 


11,423 


1918 


4,800 

1,226 

2,421 

799 

347 

97 

343 

413 

127 

34 

47 

0 

11 

52 

43 

4 

2 


10,766 
202 

10,033 
8,020 
2,948 
3,220 


10.! 


1919 


4,500 

1,506 

2,452 

930 

524 

324 

127 

55 

100 

25 

5 

73 

49 

121 

18 


10,815 
178 

10,363 
7,882 
3,111 
3,382 


10,993 


1920 


5,016 
3,979 
1,902 
1,006 

654 
1,179 
1,264 

290 


15,828 
113 

15,000 
7,924 
8,017 
2,908 


15,941 


1921 


13,053 


1922 


6,465 
5,461 
2,678 
1,862 
774 
468 


20,111 
270 
19,568 
11,005 
9,376 
4,540 


20,381 


1923 


7,143 

1,701 

4,274 

2,575 

696 

318 

543 

541 

99 

65 

33 

140 

39 

76 

63 

48 

15 


18,369 
220 
17,250 
13,992 
4,597 
6.849 


18,589 


1924 


6,312 

2,978 

2,456 

1,483 

955 

595 

394 

273 

129 

81 

47 

55 

61 

60 

30 

38 

30 

15,977 
269 
15,173 
10,251 
5,995 
3,939 


16,246 


1925 


8,718 

4,510 

3,560 

2,225 

717 

614 

151 

128 

121 

29 

62 

67 

59 

52 

29 

11 

4 


21,057 

200 

20,495 

14,503 

6,754 

5,785 


21,257 


1926 


11,671 


25,004 

186 

24,170 

19,847 

5,343 

8,176 


25,190 


1927* 


17,719 
184 
17,203 
14,049 
3,670 
5,059 


17,903 


*  Data  for  1927  are  preliminary  and  subject  to  revision. 

t  The  states  included  in  the  group  totals  listed  above  are  as  follows: 

A — Total  of  17  states  listed  separately  in  the  table; 

B— Total  of  all  other  states; 

C — Total  of  the  seven  chief  pear-shipping  states:  California,  Washington,  New  York,  Oregon, 
Michigan,  Illinois,  and  Colorado; 

D— Total  for  the  Pacific  Coast  states:  California,  Washington,  and  Oregon; 

E — United  States  total  minus  the  Pacific  Coast  states  in  group  D; 

F — Total  of  two  Pacific-northwest  states:  Washington  and  Oregon. 
(See  bottom  next  page  for  footnote  to  table  32  continued.) 


104 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


TABLE  33 

Carlot  Shipments  of  California  Pears  by  Counties  and  Districts, 

Calendar  Years  1920-1926 


County  and  district 


Coast  District:  total 

Santa  Clara 

Mendocinof 

Sonoma 

Napa 

San  Benito 

Monterey 

Santa  Cruz 

Marin 

Sacramento  Valley:  total 

Sacramento 

Contra  Costa 

Solano 

Yuba 

Yolo 

San  Joaquin 

Glenn 

Shasta 

Tehama 

Sutter 

Colusa 

Southern  California:  total. 

Kern 

Los  Angeles 

Riverside 

Imperial 

Mountain:  total 

Placer 

Eldorado 

Amador 

Other  counties:  total 

State  total 


1920 


Cars 


974 
496 
135 
115 

24 
125 

43 


0 

30 
62 

9 

m 

18 

106 

11 

9 

947 

687 

249 

11 

62 

5,021 


1921 


Cars 


1,276 

780 

89 

116 

46 

114 

53 

65 

13 

2,277 

1,305 

452 

316 

101 

19 

16 


12 

42 

11 

3 

223 
0 

174 
35 
14 

667 

596 

57 

14 

55 

4,498 


1922 


Cars 


1,622 

753 

269 

235 

85 

147 

55 

63 

15 

3,184 

2,086 


18 

25 

9 

13 

298 

112 

133 

40 

13 

1,242 

754 

478 

10 

/// 

6,457 


1923 


Cars 


2,105 

924 

524 

287 

116 

137 

45 

55 

17 

3,827 

2,221 

529 

557 

252 

120 

21 


19 

28 

69 

11 

244 

22 

165 

49 

8 

816 

582 

218 


7,150 


1924 


Cars 


2,403 

926 

729 

323 

106 

167 

84 

49 

19 

2,735 

1,701 

396 

283 

199 

47 

40 

19 

25 

10 

6 

9 

199 


7 
787 


13 

173 
6,297 


1925 


Cars 


2,378 

854 

637 

364 

199 

156 

85 

55 

28 

4,494 

2,681 

534 

500 

276 

147 

96 


55 

53 

12 

170 

9 

112 

36 

13 

1,468 

1,194 

255 

19 

176 


1926* 


Cars 


3,845 

1,364 

1,465 

283 

367 

159 

121 

66 

20 

5,463 

3,109 

556 

688 

487 

242 

144 

66 

18 

20 

44 

89 

159 

79 

57 

23 


2,130 

1,318 

812 


284 
11.881 


Average  1924-26 


Cars 


2,875 

1,048 

944 

323 

224 

161 

97 

57 

22 

4,231 

2,497 

495 

490 

321 

145 

93 

55 

34 

28 

34 

37 

176 

85 

49 

35 

7 

1,462 

1,033 

418 

11 

211 

8.955 


Per  cent 
of  total 


32.1 
11.7 
10.6 
3.6 
2.5 
1.8 
1.1 
0  6 
0.2 
47.3 
25.0 
5.5 
5.5 
3.6 
1.6 
1.0 
0.6 
0.4 
0.3 
0  4 
0.4 
2.0 
0.9 
0.6 
0.4 
0.1 
16.3 
11.5 
4.7 
0.1 
2.3 
100.0 


*  Data  for  1926  are  preliminary  and  subject  to  revision. 

t  Shipments  reported  from  Mendocino  include  those  from  Lake  County,  which  has  no  railroad 
loading  points. 

Data  for  years  1920-1923  from:  Carload  Shipments  of  Fruits  and  Melons  from  Stations  in  the  United 
States,  1920-1923,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Stat.  Bui.  8:  51-56.  1925;  for  years  1924  and  1925  from:  Carload  Ship- 
ments of  Fruits  and  Vegetables  from  Stations  in  the  United  States  1924  and  1925.  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Stat. 
Bui.  19:  47-52.  1927;  for  year  1926  from  preliminary  mimeographed  release  of  Los  Angeles  office  of  the 
Market  News  Service  of  the  U.  S.  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics,  April  30,  1927. 


(Footnote  for  table  32  continued  from  preceding  page.) 

Carlot  shipment  figures  as  reported  by  the  carriers  to  the  U.  S.  Dept.  of  Agriculture  are  believed  to 
be  appreciably  incomplete  before  1920  but,  as  a  result  of  improvements  in  the  Market  News  Service,  rea- 
sonably complete  thereafter. 

Data  for  1917-1919  for  California  are  rough  estimates  by  the  author  (to  nearest  hundred  cars)  on  the 
basis  of  interstate  shipments  north  of  Tehachapi  as  95  per  cent  of  the  state's  total  shipments — local  and 
interstate,  both  north  and  south  of  Tehachapi;  for  1917-1919  for  Missouri,  Pennsylvania,  and  Virginia 
from:  Hansen,  C.  J.,  and  O.  W.  Holmes.  California  pear  deal,  1925.  U.  S.  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.  (mimeo. 
summary)  p.  9.  1926;  for  1917-1919  for  all  other  states  from  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Yearbook,  1923:  751.  1924. 
Data  for  Missouri,  Pennsylvania,  and  Virginia  for  1920-1923  from:  Carload  Shipments  of  Fruits  and 
Melons  from  Stations  in  the  United  States,  1920-1923.  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Stat.  Bui.  8:  51-56.  Feb.,  1925, 
and  for  1924  and  1925  from  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Stat.  Bui.  19:  47-52.  Feb.,  1927.  Data  for  all  other  states 
for  1920-1925  compiled  on  crop  year  basis  from  mimeographed  releases  by  the  U.  S.  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.  of 
monthly  shipments  of  pears  by  states  of  origin.  Data  for  all  states  for  the  1926  season  and  the  1927  through 
Dec.  31,  1927,  compiled  from  the  mimeographed  Weekly  Summary  of  Carlot  Shipments  issued  by  the 
U.  S.  Bur.  Agr.  Econ. 


Bul.  452] 


ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF  THE  PEAR  INDUSTRY 


105 


TABLE  34 

California  Bearing  Pear  Acreage  by  Counties  and  Districts,  1921-1927, 

and  Non-Bearing  and  Total,  1927 


County  and  district 


Coast  District:  total 

Santa  Clara 

Lake 

Sonoma 

Mendocino 

Napa 

San  Luis  Obispo 

Alameda 

San  Benito 

Monterey 

Santa  Cruz 

San  Mateo 

Marin 

Humboldt 

Sacramento  Valley:  total- 
Sacramento 

Solano 

Contra  Costa 

Yolo 

San  Joaquin 

Yuba 

Butte 

Sutter 

Glenn 

Tehama 

Shasta 

Colusa 

Southern  California:  total. 

Los  Angeles 

Riverside 

Kern 

San  Bernardino 

San  Diego 

Ventuia 

Orange 

Santa  Barbara 

Imperial 

Mountain:  total 

Placer 

Eldorado 

Nevada 

Inyo 

Tuolumne 

Amador 

Calaveras 


Other  counties:  total. 
State  Total 


1921 


Per 

cent 

of 
total 


29.4 
7.9 
2.8 
4.3 
1.9 
2.1 
4  7 


0  9 
0.5 
1.3 
0.1 
0.3 
0.2 

40-  4 

16.9 
6.6 
4.7 
3.4 
2.9 
0  6 
1.4 
12 
1.4 
0  8 
0.4 
0.1 

12.7 

7.0 
1.6 
1.7 
1.7 
0.5 
0.1 


0  1 

15. 2 
8.2 
3  9 
2  5 
0  2 
0  1 
0.1 
0  2 


2.3 


9,332 

2,500 

900 

1,375 

605 

656 

1,487 

800 

275 

160 

400 

24 

85 

65 

12,783 

5,347 

2,100 

1,500 

1,072 

881 

200 

450 

380 

442 

247 

120 

44 

4,036 

2,228 

497 

542 

556 

150 


40 

4,781 

2,610 

1,200 

800 

50 

25 

36 


31,718 


1922 


10,899 

2,950 

1,564 

1,250 

605 

723 

1,564 

800 

360 

313 

500 

107 

90 

73 

14,788 

6,347 

2,600 

1,500 

1,200 

1,011 

250 

450 

485 

534 

247 

120 

44 

6,550 

4,119 

880 

542 

756 

150 

23 


10 

60 

5,483 

2,860 

1,500 

900 

50 

75 


38,691 


1923 


11,883 

3,400 

1,844 

1,250 

605 

790 

1,620 

800 

445 

331 

500 

118 

105 

75 

16,185 

6,376 

3,050 

1,750 

1,235 

1,200 

700 

456 

490 

534 

230 

120 

44 

6,905 

4,119 

988 

671 

870 

150 

27 


20 

60 

5,868 

3,070 

1,650 

925 

50 

75 

38 

60 


41,831 


1924 


13,000 

3,850 

2,130 

1,300 

605 

1,002 

1,675 

800 

531 

350 

500 

128 

120 

75 

16,655 

6,400 

3,200 

2,000 


1,270 

1,228 

700 

462 

495 

524 

212 

120 

44 

7,241 

4,119 

1,096 

800 

956 

150 

30 


30 

60 

6,253 

3,280 

1,800 

950 

50 

75 

38 

60 


1,100 


44,315 


1925 


15,310 

3,940 

2,801 

1,450 

750 

1,352 

1,775 

1,150 

631 

400 

600 

150 

160 

154 

16,950 

6,244 

3,300 

2,220 


1,060 

1,258 

150 

44 

10 

30 

70 

6,634 

3,359 

2,000 

1,050 

50 

75 

40 

60 


1,256 


48,277 


1926 


17,490 

4,060 

3,423 

1,550 

1,270 

1,500 

1,800 

1,148 

673 

821 

700 

225 

160 

160 

18,498 

6,400 

3,455 

3,207 

1,400 

1,284 

775 

583 

572 

449 

212 

125 

36 

8,649 

4,519 

1,114 

1,175 

1,436 

150 

78 

57 

50 

70 

7,703 

3,726 

2,300 

1,370 

50 

125 

72 

60 


1927' 


Bear- 
ing 


20,421 

5,284 

4,038 

1,750 

1,615 

1,500 

1,320 

1,248 

1,164 

1,010 

729 

429 

167 

167 

19,806 

7,000 

3,483 

3,359 

1,540 

1,310 

868 

683 

598 

479 

306 

125 

55 

8,277 

4,384 

1,248 

1,180 

1,065 

159 

99 

57 

50 

35 

8,258 

3,712 

2,600 

1,407 

205 

200 

72 

62 


1,376 


Per 

cent  of 

state 

total 


35.1 
9.1 
6.9 
3.0 
2.8 
2.6 
2.3 
2.1 
2.0 
1.7 
13 
0.7 
0  3 
0  3 
34.1 
12.1 
6  0 
5  8 
2.6 
2 
1 
1 
1 
0 
0 

0 
0 
14 
7 
2 
2 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
14 

6 
4 
2 
0 
0 
0 
0 


2.4 


100.0 


Non- 
bear- 
ing 
acres 


14,885 

1,786 

3,669 

1,170 

2,624 

2,275 

240 

180 

685 

1,207 

671 

130 

88 

160 

8,658 

3,000 

630 

1,315 

1,313 

1,412 

397 

57 

328 

77 

51 

35 

43 

3,331 

1,519 

919 


571 

109 

160 

13 

30 

10 

2,951 

1,505 

1,120 

23 

250 

50 

2 

1 


1,043 
30,868 


Total 


35,306 

7,070 

7,707 

2,920 

4,239 

3,775 

1,560 

1,428 

1,849 

2,217 

1,400 

559 

255 

327 

28,464 

10,000 

4,113 

4,674 

2,853 

2,722 

1,265 

740 

926 

556 

357 

160 

98 

11,608 

5,903 

2,167 

1,180 

1,636 

268 

259 

70 

80 

45 

11,209 

5,217 

3,720 

1,430 

455 

250 

74 

63 


2,419 


89,006 


*  Data  for  1927  are  preliminary  and  subject  to  revision. 

Data  on  acreage  for  all  other  years  are  revised  figures  compiled  by  N.  I.  Nielsen  of  the  California 
Cooperative  Crop  Reporting  Service,  Sacramento,  California,  May,  1927. 


106 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


*1 


03 


2  6 


-2  . 

cs.ft 
.2  6 

CO 


CB,Q 

2  6 


O  3 


Qa 


Q_oj 


03    « 


1  T3 
Q  a 


Q  a 


5  > 


as  00  -g< 

^M     CO     OS 


co   as  r^   10  ©   co   oo 
00   co   t-   00  co   t—   H 


<o 

CO 

00 
0 

00 

Ol 

10 

3D 

cr, 

~H     CM 

00  00 

CM 

eo 

■* 

-* 

co 

C3 

CI 

CO 

<M    r-t 

I  - 

CO 

0 

35 

eo 

0 
55 

CO 

00 

O 

CO 

CO    00 

CO     O 

"-1 

C3 

C3 

C3 

co 

Ol 

CM 

co 

<M     CM 

'30 

eo 

eo 

O 
0 

04 

ifl 

co 

§ 

CO    O 
CM     CM 

c 

■Z-    bf 


n^moio-t'jiio 


<o   »   N 


0     H     ^H     rt 


-H     CM 

as   as 
©'   o 


O    "3    M    "5 

i>-  co   as  00 

i-<  ^h  0  ©' 


OS 

r- 

3 

oa 

Q 

CI 

0 

1~ 

O 

co 

1-1 

CJ 

01 

03 

"-1 

•"< 

03 

CM 

■""' 

*"' 

_ 

^ 

^ 

^_ 

eo 

O 

^ 

CM 

>o 

eo 

00 

00 

^ 

3 

50 

if 

I- 

CO 

OS 

CO 

as 

i~ 

O 

CN 

CO' 

co 

-r 

03 

C3 

co 

CO 

03 

CM 

«    OO    (N    •* 

to  -*   cm   as 

0  ~i  —i  0 


OS    IO    CO 

©'    ©    >-i 


eo    to    -* 
CM    CM    CM 


-*    CO    o 
y-i    ©    CM 


co   as  o   as 


10   10   N 

CM    CM 


H     rt     H     N     H     N 


CO    S3    t^ 
CM    CM    -H 


00    113    00    N 


O   as   co 

Tt<    CO    CM 


CSOlHINrt00MC3"3O 
cOt^CMOCMOOOCOCO-^ 

oo-h*-;--;c3^^^~« 


10 

03 

1^ 

8 

■f 

CO 

00 

CO 
CO 

s 

eo 

— 

OS 

CO 

~ 

* 

OS 

CM 

■■* 

M 

,H 

03 

03 

*■* 

0 
03 

as 

CO' 

00 

p 

03 

03 

>* 

00 

as 

10 

03 

Ol 

OS 

as 

■-1 

"-' 

*"• 

rt 

03 

"H 

""< 

C3 

03 

"H 

eo 

.0 
1^ 

s 

OS 

■* 

a. 

OS 

00 
00 

0 
5 

CO 

0 

C3 

CM 

CO 

CO 

CO 

01 

03 

CO' 

CO 

CO 

OO'-iO^O'-''-'^ 

O 

CM»OI^OCOC03>.COO 

3 

rt    — 1    IN    N    H    rt    rt    IN    C3 

*H 

-H  CM 


•^  OS  CO  O 
t>.  OS  if  «-h 

H  rt  N  N 


eo  co 


>c  CM  CO  i— 

CO  »^  l>-  -^3 

CM  CO  CO  CO 


O  00  ifi  ■* 


35 

0 

a. 

•* 

CO 

US 

eo 

eo 
03 

s 

0 

03 

>o 

cc 

CO 

"I 

03 

03 

03 

03 

'-' 

~* 

C3 

CM 

1-4 

CO 

CO 

s 

0 
00 

to 

'O 

00 

a-. 

»o 

g 

CO 

0 

^ 

rt 

■"■' 

»H 

C-3 

^ 

,H 

C3 

03 

CM 

O 

03 

OS 

10 

>* 

CM 

C-3 

oc 

0 

ifl 

eo 

8 

if 

CNCOCOifCOeoeMeOCOCO 


9  2 


0  * 


CO    lO    to    "O 
N    -H    *    •* 

O      ^i      r-l      rt 


o  t—  »c 

^H      1C      -H 
CM     <-H     -H 


O     !>•     I>     CO 

CO    CM    O    CO 

H    «'    WM 


CO    ^H     CM 
CM     CM    CM 


CO 
Ol 

N    00    ID    ^ 

N    O    H    00 

03 

M 

0 

■0 

«5 

0 

*■■ 

^     CM     CM     CM 

03 

03 

CO 

03 

CM 

eo 
01 

O    Ifi    »    "3 

10  co  as  cm 

CO 

>o 

OJ 
CO 

CO 

eo 

CO 

CO 

CM 

CO    ■*    **    Tt< 

CO 

CO 

Tt< 

eo 

CO 

r^  00  ©   >c   00   -<   >c 


O   cm  eo   as  .-1   co 


-h   o  o   ~* 


00    CM    CM    OO 
«-i     CM    CM    CM 


-h   as  o   cm 

lO     -<t<    •"!<    O 

C3    rt     H     N 


"5 

>o 

CI 

1  - 

s§ 

as 

00 

CO' 
CO 

00 

as 

eo 
■a 

O 

03 

co 

CM 

rt 

rt 

^ 

■*■' 

03 

^ 

rt 

03 

rt 

~* 

CM 

s 

0 

9 

00 

CO 

0 

"5 

s 

«5 

1- 

CO 

CM 

CO 

CM 

CO 

CO' 

f> 

CO 

C-3 

CO 

eo 

C3 

C3 

eo 

CO    CO    O     CO     CM 
O    ■*    CO    CO    o 


i-l     CO    CM     CM    CO 
CD    lO    CM     CO    -h 


00    CO 
CM    CO 


00    O 
CO    CO 


if    U5    IO    CO 
*    ^    CO    IO 

CM    CM    CO    CM 


p 

ll 

S2 


!z;2 


.1^^-ScO- 

0  &°^ 

MShOS 

o533S 

s.si§ 

g«^CM 

\.  °   -2 
a 


'£c3£ 


^     &S2 


C3    03 


03  T3 


•2  ™  5  cm 
a  c  cs 


S     P 


2    -a 


co  5 

c3  cj 


c3  03TJ2 
O  esDfl^ 

03    03  -S^ 

St-  —  « 

X    S    03      - 


a2' 
c  o 


03-3        0.-0  CS 

&  eo  03  03  MO  k 

"-o  o  03  st:  -a 

a^  5J3.H   03  C 


0,0s  co 


03   O 


a°e 


iiS  .802 


Eg 

0 

CI 

CI 

00 

CO 

2  S 

O     CM 
CM    lO 

CO 

O 

,~l 

Cl 

C3 

CM 

CO    CM 

CM 

eo   cm 

CM 

10 

eo 

eo 

es 

as 

co   as 

cr. 
SO 

CO    O0 

00  0 

00 

03 

-* 

* 

>o 

■"*   eo 

CO 

~r    iff 

CO 

CM    ■**<    CO    CM     O 


QHHHHHHC3 


5  s 

CM    CO 


•O    Q 

CO    CM 


lO    CO    CO    -H 
-^    O    O    lO 

CM     CM    CO    CM 


t^   ir^   ■«*<    eo 

^      O0      O      -H 


5  s 


CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM 


o  o   as  t^ 


CO   co   ^    ^ 

10  hi   10  a> 

co  »  *  eo 


M»CSOHNCOi(i«3ION« 
hhhMMNNINNNINN 

asasasasasasasasasasasas 


_     o    -h    CM    co    h*    to 
-^CMCMCMCMCMCMCM 


as   as  as   as  as 


073  co  m  03-3  ^2tJ  ^  S 


§S^.2 


b/3  ..  CI  csj' 


03  P  3. 


-It's  §g£&  2^5 

D.vT<    03  *i    u  T3     I       I     c8  — 1    03 

.^OsSM^coOOcC^S 

SO  cs^  """  >.ir^  S  ccj  o3 

O     -  ft--   03  -^>   ^     -•r'SO..  . 


j2  o 


_^o3o3g-H^.t:a 
«ri.0co3#^0r  .a  a 
■E-HCM-a-g  co  x-o  °P  2 

a22a^5c-»3M 

l!liii«§.I-i| 

Wj£-   g  .2   03   03  m-^   43  — 


g^-2'"  2  § 


ft°    fl    03"^ 

1  "O  2  cj«*- 

5£«C3S'2   0 
°^i  03  O  g  ft  co 


"c3  «•- 


^■gsH 


O  cS-o  e3 

H3o9 


03    CO         l>-    5    43"^ 

20     osSSrt 


Bul.  452 


ECONOMIC  ASPECTS  OF   THE  PEAR   INDUSTRY 


107 


Others,  in- 
cluding 
Flemish 

"3 

227 

1,453 

885 

165 

288 

850 

1,348 

2,713 

1,156 

2,531 

2,776 

2,113 

4,585 

2,475 

1,830 

205 

761 

1,088 

465 

1.303 

r-  if 

IO 

CM* 

CO 

CO 

*c 

oc 

If 
at 

I? 

o<c<cooininocqiooO"0>n 
cor^cM~a>t-~a>r^©oocM— !■>*< 

lflN!ONiONO<*NfHU5NO 
CO -H  •<*!  CM  CO  CO  ^h  CM  CM               i-H 

§ 

© 

OS 

co 

CO 
CO 

CM 

o 

1 

IO* 

US 

OS 

00 

co 

Flem- 
ish 

-is 

ooomoioioooo 

COC0-«t<CMr^O5.-it^<M»0 
lONOtOO'- '  CM  CO  CM  © 

CM  -*  CO  CM  CM  »-l         CM  CM 

ooo 

CM-H 

oo" 

CO 
OO* 

3   <* 

"3 
O 

iO»0»OCOiO*0»OiO»0»OCO©00©© 
iOOO>00'*0'005'*OOMiONC<3rt 

i-T       i-c  CO  M*  oo  »c  co  CO  CO  CO 

I 

OS 

CO 

»o 

Oi 

co 
IO 

»o 

>> 

«3 
X 

d 

oou)«in")'OooM«)oo 

NlOO>NOOrtCOOOOKI1lH 
■<|(Ni-linNNe<5OO>0H 

CO 

i 

to* 

.23 
s 

"3 
O 

omowoooMiooiocmocooooo 

C<3»01(»^ONMT|lmwOntDi)iOO'* 

■H<oMo-<0(iertNmin"O!Oi-i'ji 

OS 
CM 

00 

o 

CM 

o* 

o 

CM 

ooo 

»o  ^H  CO 

ooicio>0'noonoo 

t(It((NP3'-iC»I3O0ONNih 

NwanHoiemwifio 

>HC<|INMNMMO®NlO 

00 
lO 
IO 

OO* 

CM 

oT 

CO 

OO 
00 

4) 

w 

a 

o 
O 

"3 
O 

MmmoocoxjooicmooooMio 

P5HU)rtC<305a>NU500ClCjM010 
CM  •*  CM*'**  CO  OO  OO  ■**<  CO  CO                      i-l  ^H 

03 

00 
OS 

CO* 

05 
00 
OS 

CO* 

»o 

■fig 

,|9 

O'fl'C'OOono'Oiooooioowo 

iJlNlOOSOrtnCOCOOOONiHWN 
OW'HCRil'WOOtDNNcClNiOtOtOlO 

rt"        -Hi-H  ■«**lo"c©*-»*<  t--  00  ■*  CM  i-(  i-c 

to 

"5 

3 

«o 

3 

"3 
O 

wnoooooooocoocicc 

tOO)OON(NK3«5(OOOiOQONiO 

NO"5HOl»S^NOM!DO 

,_,               h  rt  ^H  rt  CM  rt  CM  ^H  CM 

OO  o 
02  CM 
OO  lO 

CM 

o 

CM 

o 

OS 
CM 

Jc 

ooujioiooooMOicoxoownuj 

lOOfOCCtMM'HOOiJlOinOOOtOOlifl 

NmoiffiinoNoacqijio^oocoao 

CM  CM  CO  ^H  ©*rt  >0  oTtJ<  MC6NOOU5CO 
^H  1-H  i-H           i-l  ,-t           «-l  CM  CM  <-H 

o 

CO 

s 

CO 

CO* 
IO 
CM 

o 
en 
O 

pq 

"3 
O 

oooo>omooo»cooco 

wOO^tOiHffloOCCNCqtO 

.-*     Ha^  TtTcsTco'co 

CO 

CM* 

CO 

CO 
CO 

CM 

co 

si  6 

Jo 

oioiflOOwooniooiOMOoiflOO 

a>POO«DOOOONI>lONX^,'HtDOOCI^ 

Tf'HocooiaoooicooooifliN'O      i-t 

CM 
CM 

o_ 

o 
«* 
l^ 

"3 
O 

■*M'CNO)C»'*U50»0)115M-<H 

^^wooN^ioooooaoousooo 

CM 

CO 
P9 

o* 

CO 

1** 

OS 
OS 

CO 

CO 

*? 

-£  -J 

CO     (4 

1° 

©»OU500©»OiO»OCOCOOO»OOOCOOOaOOSCO»0 

!0NrtM®^ma30)!0OaN00Mi0IN'HO 
lOCMOOOiCOOi-Hi— iWH0CN©NC6lC*l»O 

cocoi-H-^cno>t^eM»oo5Cvioo-»ticc>iocM'*o 

-HCM^HCMCO^^CO-^CMCMCMCOCOCM-H 

s 

p 

as 

IO 
OS 

CO* 
CM 
CM 

i 

t 

"3 
O 

©o»n©oioo»oioo*o»o*ooioio 

tO«lOOOffimO)OJ>0'<J"000'HNINi-< 

-*  »."r^  co  oo  co  -<*i  r^  cm*  ct>  r^.*t^  co  co  >o  ^h 

1 

«o* 

p 

IO* 

i, 

|5 

OC5»00"5"50lCOOOOO 

iflNM^OOOMfflaTtllNMO 

lOHO^mw  oo"»o  02  •**  cm  cm 

i-H         CM  CM  — I  CM  ■»»<  CO  i-H 

o 
o 
» 

CM 
CM 

o 

o 

CM* 
CM 

1 

o 

©©•0©©iO©iO©000»0*OiOlOO©© 
i— lNSP300M>nWMaiNN<CNO>- I  ■*»<  CM  CM 

oo»o-*<cocMCMCMr^©a)i>.t^'»*<CM 

1 

00* 

8. 

•o 

o 
<o 

OO* 
CO 

J 

g 

< 

"3 
O 

00"nOOlONM!0'ilMM'<)HD*^0>i((MrtrtOON-HC<J?30» 
•Ht0^C0O00*NNCDrtNM'0lOt04>na5'HiHS050)0:e<ja!O 
iHNSnQOMO:NinOlOOOOC01COO»OOlflOOOCOOOOOinNN!0 

co 

CO 

to* 

CD 

05 

2 

l~-* 

Xi     CD 

03    1- 

|0 

oolOOOooowioioioNnooioooMococonio 

MOMOOaiSO^MOOSOOOOlNOOWiniNHO 

«5>HOQeM*COlOSrHioSC»NOO't!Oin(N'*0 
-*         CM  CM  ^H  CO  t--  U5  ■«*<  ^*<  IO  •"*  CO  •»*<  CM  OJ  CM  CO  CO  CM  -h 

OS 
CO 
OO 

a> 

CO 

1. 

CO 

CM 

CM 

oo* 

OS 

"3 
o 

connooa<*t£>oo'(iNmO'<)i>n(0-HO(ONrtn(N>nnONSti5 

>-(Ot)(C<5000a'>1iO®N»tOi(iO!NMrtil5a)0)^lMODU5SNO 

rtNNC300e<301NNpCC»NMXOC'H'<tiMNlNN«>0^aN50 
OOiC'*tD(NMiMa(NO-«COO)OONXNlClOCOM«!fmiN'H 

CO 

s 
§ 

CM 

CO 
CO 
c» 
00* 

CO 

OS 

co 

00 

tn 

CM 

J* 

i 

.r 

0 
I 
z 

> 

z 

- 

1 

SB 

I- 

e 

ce 
b 

< 

e» 
) 

c 

If 

t 
« 

c 

s 

c 

-r 

,r 

CN 

as 

c 

e 

3 

ce 

(M 

K 

c, 
9 

p 

= 

M 

»00^ 
<   CP    0) 

1^ 

i    a 

**  c 

i-s 

u 

2 

ll 

*3  > 
0 

s 

STATION  PUBLICATIONS  AVAILABLE  FOR  FREE   DISTRIBUTION 


BULLETINS 


No.  No. 

253.    Irrigation   and   Soil   Conditions  in  the  386. 

Sierra    Nevada   Foothills,    California. 

262.  Citrus   Diseases  of   Florida   and    Cuba  387. 

Compared   with   those  of   California.  388. 

263.  Size  Grades  for  Ripe  Olives. 

268.   Growing  and  Grafting  Olive  Seedlings  389. 

273.   Preliminary  Report  on  Kearney  Vine-  390. 

yard     Experimental     Drain,     Fresno 
County,    Calif.  391. 

277.  Sudan  Grass. 

278.  Grain  Sorghums.  392. 

279.  Irrigation  of  Rice  in  California.  393. 
283.  The  Olive  Insects  of  California.  394. 
304.  A  Study  of  the  Effects  of  Freezes  on 

Citrus  in  California. 

310.   Plum  Pollination.  395. 

313.  Pruning      Young      Deciduous      Fruit 

Trees.  396. 

324.   Storage  of  Perishable  Fruits  at  Freez- 
ing Temperatures.  397. 

328.   Prune   Growing  in   California. 

331.   Phylloxera-resistant  Stocks.  398. 

335.  Cocoanut   Meal    as   a    Feed   for    Dairy  400. 

Cows  and   Other  Livestock.  402. 

340.   Control     of     the     Pocket     Gopher     in  404. 

California.  405. 

343.  Cheese   Pests   and   Their  Control.  406. 

344.  Cold    Storage   as   an    Aid   to   the   Mar-  407. 

keting  of  Plums,  a  Progress  Report. 

347.  The  Control  of  Red  Spiders  in  Decid- 

uous Orchards.  408. 

348.  Pruning  Young  Olive  Trees.  409. 

349.  A    Study    of    Sidedraft    and    Tractor 

Hitches. 

350.  Agriculture      in      Cut-Over      Redwood 

Lands.  410. 

353.  Bovine    Infectious    Abortion,    and    As- 

sociated Diseases  of  Cattle  and  New- 
born Calves.  411. 

354.  Results  of  Rice  Experiments  in  1922. 

357.  A    Self-Mixing    Dusting    Machine    for  412. 

Applying  Dry  Insecticides  and  Fun- 
gicides. 

358.  Black    Measles,    Water    Berries,    and  414. 

Related  Vine  Troubles. 

361.  Preliminary  Yield  Tables  for   Second-  415. 

Growth   Redwood.  416. 

362.  Dust  and  the  Tractor  Engine. 

363.  The  Pruning  of  Citrus  Trees  in  Cali-  417. 

fovnia. 

364.  Fungicidal    Dusts    for    the    Control    of  418. 

Bunt. 

366.  Turkish     Tobacco     Culture,     Curing,  419. 

and   Marketing. 

367.  Methods  of  Harvesting  and  Irrigation  420. 

in  Relation  to  Moldy  Walnuts. 

368.  Bacterial      Decomposition      of      Olives  421. 

During  Pickling.  422. 

369.  Comparison     of     Woods     for     Butter 

Boxes.  423. 

370.  Factors    Influencing   the    Development 

of  Internal  Browning  of  the  Yellow  424. 

Newton   Apple. 

371.  The    Relative    Cost   of   Yarding    Small  425. 

and   Large  Timber.  426. 

373.  Pear   Pollination. 

374.  A    Survey    of    Orchard    Practices    in  427. 

the     Citrus     Industry     of     Southern 
California.  428. 

375.  Results   of    Rice   Experiments   at   Cor- 

tena,  1923,  and  Progress  in  Experi- 
ments in  Water  Grass  Control  at  the  429. 
Biggs   Rice  Field    Station,    1922-23.  430. 
377.  The  Cold  Storage  of  Pears.                                   431. 

379.  Walnut   Culture  in   California. 

380.  Growth    of    Eucalyptus    in    California  432. 

Plantations. 
382.   Pumping    for    Draininge    in    the    San  433. 

Joaquin    Valley,    California. 
385.   Pollination  of  the  Sweet  Cherry. 


Pruning  Bearing  Deciduous  Fruit 
Trees. 

Fig   Smut. 

The  Principles  and  Practice  of  Sun- 
Drying  Fruit. 

Berseem  or  Egyptian  Clover. 

Harvesting  and  Packing  Grapes  in 
California. 

Machines  for  Coating  Seed  Wheat 
with   Copper   Carbonate   Dust. 

Fruit  Juice  Concentrates. 

Crop   Sequences  at  Davis. 

I.  Cereal  Hay  Production  in  Cali- 
fornia. II.  Feeding  Trials  with 
Cereal  Hays. 

Bark  Diseases  of  Citrus  Trees  in  Cali- 
fornia. 

The  Mat  Bean,  Phaseolus  Aconitifo- 
lius. 

Manufacture  of  Roquefort  Type  Cheese 
from  Goat's  Milk. 

Orchard    Heating  in    California. 

The  Utilization  of  Surplus  Plums. 

The  Codling  Moth  in  Walnuts. 

The  Dehydration  of  Prunes. 

Citrus   Culture   in    Central   California. 

Stationary  Spray  Plants  in  California. 

Yield,  Stand,  and  Volume  Tables  for 
White  Fir  in  the  California  Pine 
Region. 

Alternaria  Rot  of  Lemons. 

The  Digestibility  of  Certain  Fruit  By- 
products as  Determined  for  Rumi- 
nants. Part  I.  Dried  Orange  Pulp 
and  Raisin  Pulp. 

Factors  Influencing  the  Quality  of 
Fresh  Asparagus  after  it  is  Har- 
vested. 

Paradichlorobenzene  as  a  Soil  Fumi- 
gant. 

A  Study  of  the  Relative  Value  of  Cer- 
tain Root  Crops  and  Salmon  Oil  as 
Sources   of   Vitamin   A  for   Poultry. 

Planting  and  Thinning  Distances  for 
Deciduous  Fruit  Trees. 

The  Tractor  on  California  Farms. 

Culture  of  the  Oriental  Persimmon  in 
California. 

Poultry  Feeding:  Principles  and  Prac- 
tice. 

A  Study  of  Various  Rations  for  Fin- 
ishing Range  Calves    as  Baby  Beeves. 

Economic  Aspects  of  the  Cantaloupe 
Industry. 

Rice  and  Rice  By-Products  as  Feeds 
for  Fattening  Swine. 

Beef   Cattle  Feeding   Trials,    1921-24. 

Cost  of  Producing  Almonds  in  Cali- 
fornia: a  Progress  Report. 

Apricots  (Series  on  California  Crops 
and  Prices). 

The  Relation  of  Rate  of  Maturity  to 
Egg  Production. 

Apple  Growing  in  California. 

Apple  Pollination  Studies  in  Cali- 
fornia. 

The  Value  of  Orange  Pulp  for  Milk 
Production. 

The  Relation  of  Maturity  of  Cali- 
fornia Plums  to  Shipping  and 
Dessert  Quality. 

Economic  Status  of  the  Grape  Industry. 

Range  Grasses  of  California. 

Raisin  By-Products  and  Bean  Screen- 
ings as  Feeds  for  Fattening  Lambs. 

Some  Economic  Problems  Involved  in 
the  Pooling  of  Fruit. 

Power  Requirements  of  Electrically 
Driven     Manufacturing    Equipment. 


No. 

434. 


436. 
437. 
438. 
439. 


No. 
87. 
115. 
117. 

127. 
129. 
136. 

144. 

157. 
164. 
166. 
173. 

178. 
179. 

202. 

203. 
209. 
212. 
215. 
217. 

230. 

231. 
232. 

234. 

238. 
239. 

240. 

241. 

243. 

244. 
245. 
248. 

249. 
250. 

252. 
253. 
254. 

255. 


BULLETINS—  (Continued) 
No. 


Investigations  on  the  Use  of  Fruits  in 
Ice  Cream  and  Ices. 

The  Problem  of  Securing  Closer 
Relationship  Between  Agricultural 
Development  and  Irrigation  Con- 
struction. 

I.  The  Kadota  Fig.  II.  Kadota  Fig 
Products. 

Economic  Aspects  of  the  Dairy  In- 
dustry. 

Grafting  Affinities  with  Special  Refer- 
ence to  Plums. 

The  Digestibility  of  Certain  Fruit  By- 
products as  Determined  for  Rumi- 
nants. Part  II.  Dried  Pineapple 
Pulp,  Dried  Lemon  Pulp,  and  Dried 
Olive  Pulp. 


441. 
442. 
443. 

444. 


The  Feeding  Value  of  Raisins  and 
Dairy  By-Products  for  Growing  and 
Fattening  Swine. 

The  Electric  Brooder. 

Laboratory  Tests  of  Orchard  Heaters. 

Standardization  and  Improvement  of 
California   Butter. 

Series  on  California  Crops  and  Prices: 
Beans. 

Economic  Aspects  of  the  Apple  In- 
dustry. 


CIRCULARS 
No. 

Alfalfa.  257. 

Grafting  Vinifera  Vineyards. 

The    selection    and    Cost    of    a    Small  258. 

Pumping   Plant.  259. 

House  Fumigation.  261. 

The  control  of  Citrus  Insects.  264. 
Melilotus    Indica    as    a    Green-Manure 

Crop  for  California.  265. 

Oidium    or    Powdery    Mildew    of    the  266. 

Vine. 

Control  of  Pear   Scab.  267. 
Small   Fruit   Culture    in    California. 

The  County  Farm  Bureau.  269. 

The    Construction    of    the    Wood-Hoop  270. 

Silo.  273. 

The  Packing  of  Apples  in  California.  276. 

Factors    of    Importance    in    Producing  277. 

Milk  of  Low  Bacterial  Count. 

County    Organization    for    Rural    Fire  278. 

Control. 

Peat   as   a  Manure   Substitute.  279. 
The  Function  of  the  Farm  Bureau. 

Salvaging  Rain-Damaged   Prunes.  281. 
Feeding  Dairy  Cows  in   California. 
Methods  for  Marketing  Vegetables  in 

California.  282. 
Testing  Milk,    Cream,    and   Skim  Milk 

for  Butterfat.  283. 

The  Home  Vineyard.  284. 

Harvesting    and    Handling    California  286. 

Cherries   for   Eastern    Shipment.  287. 

Winter     Injury     to     Young     Walnut  288. 

Trees  During  1921-1922.  289. 

The   Apricot  in   California.  290. 

Harvesting     and     Handling     Apricots  292. 

and  Plums  for  Eastern  Shipment.  293. 

Harvesting    and    Handling    California  294. 

Pears  for  Eastern  Shipment.  296. 
Harvesting    and    Handling    California 

Peaches  for  Eastern   Shipment.  298. 
Marmalade     Juice     and     Jelly     Juice 

from   Citrus  Fruits.  300. 

Central  Wire  Bracing  for  Fruit  Trees.  301. 

Vine  Pruning  Systems.  302. 

Some  Common  Errors  in  Vine  Prun-  304. 

ing  and  Their  Remedies.  305. 

Replacing  Missing  Vines.  306. 
Measurement   of   Irrigation   Water   on 

the  Farm.  307. 

Support  for   Vines.  308. 

Vineyard  Plans.  309. 

The    Use    of    Artificial    Light    to    In-  310. 

crease  Winter  Egg  Production. 

Leguminous    Plants    as    Organic    Fer-  311. 

tilizers  in   California   Agriculture. 


The  Small-Seeded  Horse  Bean  (Vicia 
faba   var.   minor). 

Thinning   Deciduous   Fruits. 

Pear  By-Products. 

Sewing  Grain  Sacks. 

Preliminary  Essentials  to  Bovine  Tu- 
berculosis Control  in   California. 

Plant   Disease  and   Pest  Control. 

Analyzing  the  Citrus  Orchard  by 
Means  of  Simple  Tree  Records. 

The  Tendency  of  Tractors  to  Rise  in 
Front;  Causes  and  Remedies. 

An   Orchard  Brush  Burner. 

A  Farm  Septic  Tank. 

Saving  the  Gophered  Citrus  Tree. 

Home   Canning. 

Head,  Cane  and  Cordon  Pruning  of 
Vines. 

Olive  Pickling  in  Mediterranean 
Countries. 

The  Preparation  and  Refining  of 
Olive  Oil  in  Southern  Europe. 

The  Results  of  a  Survey  to  Deter- 
mine the  Cost  of  Producing  Beef  in 
California. 

Prevention  of  Insect  Attack  on  Stored 
Grain. 

Fertilizing  Citrus  Trees  in  California. 

The  Almond  in   California. 

Milk  Houses  for  California  Dairies. 

Potato   Production  in   California. 

Phylloxera  Resistant  Vineyards. 

Oak  Fungus  in   Orchard  Trees. 

The  Tangier  Pea. 

Alkali   Soils. 

The    Basis    of   Grape    Standardization. 

Propagation   of   Deciduous  Fruits. 

Control  of  the  California  Ground 
Squirrel. 

Possibilities  and  Limitations  of  Coop- 
erative Marketing. 

Coccidiosis  of  Chickens. 

Buckeye  Poisoning  of  the  Honey  Bee. 

The   Sugar  Beet  in  California. 

Drainage  on  the  Farm. 

Liming  the   Soil. 

A  General  Purpose  Soil  Auger  and 
Its  Use  on  the  Farm. 

American   Foulbrood  and   Its  Control. 

Cantaloupe   Production    in    California. 

Fruit  Tree  and   Orchard  Judging. 

The  Operation  of  the  Bacteriological 
Laboratory  for  Dairy  Plants. 

The  Improvement  of  Quality  in  Figs. 


The  publications  listed  above  may  be  had  by  addressing 

College  of  Agriculture, 

University  of  California, 

Berkeley,  California. 

14?n-5,'28 


